r/Nabokov • • Dec 20 '25

What would you recommend to read after Lolita?

20 Upvotes

r/Nabokov • • Mar 30 '25

Academia "Good Readers and Good Writers" from Lectures on Literature

17 Upvotes

"How to be a Good Reader" or "Kindness to Authors"—something of that sort might serve to provide a subtitle for these various discussions of various authors, for my plan is to deal lovingly, in loving and lingering detail, with several European masterpieces. A hundred years ago, Flaubert in a letter to his mistress made the following remark: Comme l'on serait savant si l'on connaissait bien seulement cinq a six livres: "What a scholar one might be if one knew well only some half a dozen books."

In reading, one should notice and fondle details. There is nothing wrong about the moonshine of generalization when it comes after the sunny trifles of the book have been lovingly collected. If one begins with a readymade generalization, one begins at the wrong end and travels away from the book before one has started to understand it. Nothing is more boring or more unfair to the author than starting to read, say, Madame Bovary, with the preconceived notion that it is a denunciation of the bourgeoisie. We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge.

Another question: Can we expect to glean information about places and times from a novel? Can anybody be so naive as to think he or she can learn anything about the past from those buxom best-sellers that are hawked around by book clubs under the heading of historical novels? But what about the masterpieces? Can we rely on Jane Austen's picture of landowning England with baronets and landscaped grounds when all she knew was a clergyman's parlor? And Bleak House, that fantastic romance within a fantastic London, can we call it a study of London a hundred years ago? Certainly not. And the same holds for other such novels in this series. The truth is that great novels are great fairy tales—and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales.

Time and space, the colors of the seasons, the movements of muscles and minds, all these are for writers of genius (as far as we can guess and I trust we guess right) not traditional notions which may be borrowed from the circulating library of public truths but a series of unique surprises which master artists have learned to express in their own unique way. To minor authors is left the ornamentation of the commonplace: these do not bother about any reinventing of the world; they merely try to squeeze the best they can out of a given order of things, out of traditional patterns of fiction. The various combinations these minor authors are able to produce within these set limits may be quite amusing in a mild ephemeral way because minor readers like to recognize their own ideas in a pleasing disguise. But the real writer, the fellow who sends planets spinning and models a man asleep and eagerly tampers with the sleeper's rib, that kind of author has no given values at his disposal: he must create them himself. The art of writing is a very futile business if it does not imply first of all the art of seeing the world as the potentiality of fiction. The material of this world may be real enough (as far as reality goes) but does not exist at all as an accepted entirety: it is chaos, and to this chaos the author says "go!'' allowing the world to flicker and to fuse. It is now recombined in its very atoms, not merely in its visible and superficial parts. The writer is the first man to map it and to name the natural objects it contains. Those berries there are edible. That speckled creature that bolted across my path might be tamed. That lake between those trees will be called Lake Opal or, more artistically, Dishwater Lake. That mist is a mountain—and that mountain must be conquered. Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever.

One evening at a remote provincial college through which I happened to be jogging on a protracted lecture tour, I suggested a little quiz—ten definitions of a reader, and from these ten the students had to choose four definitions that would combine to make a good reader. I have mislaid the list, but as far as I remember .the definitions went something like this. Select four answers to the question what should a reader be to be a good reader:

  1. The reader should belong to a book club.

  2. The reader should identify himself or herself with the hero or heroine.

  3. The reader should concentrate on the social-economic angle.

  4. The reader should prefer a story with action and dialogue to one with none.

  5. The reader should have seen the book in a movie.

  6. The reader should be a budding author.

  7. The reader should have imagination.

  8. The reader should have memory.

  9. The reader should have a dictionary.

  10. The reader should have some artistic sense.

The students leaned heavily on emotional identification, action, and the social-economic or historical angle. Of course, as you have guessed, the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense—which sense I propose to develop in myself and in others whenever I have the chance.

Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as dear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.

Now, this being so, we should ponder the question how does the mind work when the sullen reader is confronted by the sunny book. First, the sullen mood melts away, and for better or worse the reader enters into the spirit of the game. The effort to begin a book, especially if it is praised by people whom the young reader secretly deems to be too old-fashioned or too serious, this effort is often difficult to make; but once it is made, rewards are various and abundant. Since the master artist used his imagination in creating his book, it is natural and fair that the consumer of a book should use his imagination too.

There are, however, at least two varieties of imagination in the reader's case. So let us see which one of the two is the right one to use in reading a book. First, there is the comparatively lowly kind which turns for support to the simple emotions and is of a definitely personal nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use.

So what is the authentic instrument to be used by the reader? It is impersonal imagination and artistic delight. What should be established, I think, is an artistic harmonious balance between the reader's mind and the author's mind. We ought to remain a little aloof and take pleasure in this aloofness while at the same time we keenly enjoy—passionately enjoy, enjoy with tears and shivers—the inner weave of a given masterpiece. To be quite objective in these matters is of course impossible. Everything that is worthwhile is to some extent subjective. For instance, you sitting there may be merely my dream, and I may be your nightmare. But what I mean is that the reader must know when and where to curb his imagination and this he does by trying to get clear the specific world the author places at his disposal. We must see things and hear things, we must visualize the rooms, the clothes, the manners of an author's people. The color of Fanny Price's eyes in Mansfield Park and the furnishing of her cold little room are important.

We all have different temperaments, and I can tell you right now that the best temperament for a reader to have, or to develop, is a combination of the artistic and the scientific one. The enthusiastic artist alone is apt to be too subjective in his attitude towards a book, and so a scientific coolness of judgment will temper the intuitive heat. If, however, a would-be reader is utterly devoid of passion and patience—of an artist's passion and a scientist's patience—he will hardly enjoy great literature.

Literature was born not the day when a boy crying wolf, wolf came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big gray wolf at his heels: literature was born on the day when a boy came crying wolf, wolf and there was no wolf behind him. That the poor little fellow because he lied too often was finally eaten up by a real beast is quite incidental. But here is what is important. Between the wolf in the tall grass and the wolf in the tall story there is a shimmering go-between. That go-between, that prism, is the art of literature.

Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth. Every great writer is a great deceiver, but so is that arch-cheat Nature. Nature always deceives. From the simple deception of propagation to the prodigiously sophisticated illusion of protective colors in butterflies or birds, there is in Nature a marvelous system of spells and wiles. The writer of fiction only follows Nature's lead.

Going back for a moment to our wolf-crying woodland little woolly fellow, we may put it this way: the magic of art was in the shadow of the wolf that he deliberately invented, his dream of the wolf; then the story of his tricks made a good story. When he perished at last, the story told about him acquired a good lesson in the dark around the camp fire. But he was the little magician. He was the inventor.

There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three—storyteller, teacher, enchanter—but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.

To the storyteller we turn for entertainment, for mental excitement of the simplest kind, for emotional participation, for the pleasure of traveling in some remote region in space or time. A slightly different though not necessarily higher mind looks for the teacher in the writer. Propagandist, moralist, prophet—this is the rising sequence. We may go to the teacher not only for moral education but also for direct knowledge, for simple facts. Alas, I have known people whose purpose in reading the French and Russian novelists was to learn something about life in gay Paree or in sad Russia. Finally, and above all, a great writer is always a great enchanter, and it is here that we come to the really exciting part when we try to grasp the individual magic of his genius and to study the style, the imagery, the pattern of his novels or poems.

The three facets of the great writer—magic, story, lesson—are prone to blend in one impression of unified and unique radiance, since the magic of art may be present in the very bones of the story, in the very marrow of thought. There are masterpieces of dry, limpid, organized thought which provoke in us an artistic quiver quite as strongly as a novel like Mansfield Park does or as any rich flow of Dickensian sensual imagery. It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass.


r/Nabokov • • 18h ago

Lolita Lolita, Part One

7 Upvotes

Newb to Nabokov and this community.
Just finished part one of Lolita.
The subject matter made it a devastating read for me (and I presume for every reader).
I’m curious whether the novel still has a readership (outside of academic circles).
Have the massive changes in societal mores over the last 70 years—especially with regard to greater awareness of the prevalence of all forms of abuse—made it less relevant?


r/Nabokov • • 21h ago

Just a warning about Amazon's new Vintage International Edition Nabokov listings.

13 Upvotes

I've ordered a few, and at first they came as pictured in the listings, but I've ordered Laughter in the Dark twice now, and despite the listing showing the newer V.I. edition with the hand-painted title and red lips, they keep sending me the older edition of the book (even after being assured by customer support the first time that they would send the correct one along). Amazon's pretty good about refunds and such, but it's disappointing, and I just wanted to warn anyone thinking about picking up these newer 2026 editions from Amazon, that it seems to be a bit of a roll of the dice whether or not you actually *do* get the newest edition as pictured. I'm guessing that in some cases the warehouses have old stock of the prior V.I. editions and simply don't discriminate between the that and the newest editions when processing the orders, which is a shame.

Some people wouldn't care, but if you're specifically trying to curate a collection of the new editions (as I have been) I'd probably avoid the Amazon route. At least be aware that there's a chance you may get an older edition, despite what is pictured.


r/Nabokov • • 2d ago

Why do you think he dismissed Bellow?

19 Upvotes

Martin Amis described Nabokov and Bellow as his "twin peaks" and many Nabokov fans also love Bellow's prose.


r/Nabokov • • 2d ago

Pale Fire Pale Fire - Vladimir Nabokov

Thumbnail
5 Upvotes

r/Nabokov • • 4d ago

While reading Mourning Becomes the Law, I so unexpectedly came across Nabokov!

Post image
17 Upvotes

By Gillian Rose, acknowledging Nabokov's mischievous plasticity when contorting syntax to create aesthetic waves.


r/Nabokov • • 5d ago

Favorite works of criticism on Nabokov ?

14 Upvotes

I'm thinking about possibly doing my thesis fully focused on Nabokov, but I am not familiarized with scholarly criticism on Nabokov. Looking for any recommendations really.


r/Nabokov • • 6d ago

What should be my third Nabokov?

12 Upvotes

I've read Lolita which I loved. I've read Pnin recently and enjoyed most of it. Thinking of Ada next or is there a better reccomedation?


r/Nabokov • • 6d ago

Pale Fire Is Pale Fire a good example of a "typical" Nabokov novel?

21 Upvotes

I read Bend Sinister many years back (and liked it), and I've just cracked into the final arc of Pale Fire. It's amazing, rewarding, challenging, tedious, exhausting, and strange, all at the same time. The highs are very high indeed, and I love some of Nabokov's descriptions, like:

"So here was Otar, looking with a puzzled expression at the distant windows of the Queen’s quarters, and there were the two girls, side by side, thin-legged, in shimmering wraps, their kitten noses pink, their eyes green and sleepy, their earrings catching and loosing the fire of the sun."

I also like Nabokov's description of robins as “gross fowl, with untidy dull-red livery” consuming “long, sad, passive” worms with “revolting gusto.”

Those were just a couple of enjoyable moments in the writing I bookmarked for myself. I also found the extended passage where Charles' remote relationship with his long-suffering wife is described in detail to be quite inspired.

That said, while Nabokov is clearly a genius and an incredibly gifted writer, he's certainly not an "edge of your seat" storyteller, and I do get a little exhausted by the endless barrage of allusions that are over my head, foreign language phrases, bizarrely complex sentences, and archaic words that 1% of the population would ever know or use. That's on me and the limitations of my own education/IQ, and I don't mind looking up things—I just wish I didn't have to do so after every other sentence! So my questions for those better versed in Nabokov would be:

  1. Is Pale Fire pretty typical of Nabokov? Are his other books more or less difficult/demanding than this one?
  2. Which one of his novels is the easiest to read, and which one is the most difficult?
  3. Do you have any favorite quotes or moments or passages from Pale Fire?

Thanks all!


r/Nabokov • • 13d ago

V. Sirin, The Word (1923)

11 Upvotes

Swept out of the valley night by an inspired oneiric wind, I stood at the edge of a road, under a clear pure-gold sky, in an extraordinary mountainous land. Without looking, I sensed the lustre, the angles, and the facets of immense mosaic cliffs, dazzling precipices, and the mirrorlike glint of multitudinous lakes lying somewhere below, behind me. My soul was seized by a sense of heavenly iridescence, freedom, and loftiness: I knew that I was in Paradise. Yet, within this earthly soul, a single earthly thought rose like a piercing flame—and how jealously, how grimly I guarded it from the aura of gigantic beauty that surrounded me. This thought, this naked flame of suffering, was the thought of my earthly homeland. Barefoot and penniless, at the edge of a mountain road, I awaited the kind, luminous denizens of Heaven, while a wind, like the foretaste of a miracle, played in my hair, filled the gorges with a crystal hum, and ruffled the fabled silks of the trees that blossomed amid the cliffs lining the road. Tall grasses lapped at the tree trunks like tongues of fire; large flowers broke smoothly from the glittering branches and, like airborne goblets brimming with sunlight, glided through the air, puffing out their translucent convex petals. Their sweet, damp aroma reminded me of all the finest things I had experienced in my life.

Suddenly, the road on which I stood, breathless from the shimmer, was filled with a tempest of wings. Swarming out of the blinding depths came the angels I awaited, their folded wings pointing sharply upward. Their tread was ethereal; they were like colored clouds in motion, and their transparent visages were motionless except for the rapturous tremor of their radiant lashes. Among them, turquoise birds flew with peals of happy girlish laughter, and lithe orange animals loped, fantastically speckled with black. The creatures coiled through the air, silently thrusting out their satin paws to catch the airborne flowers as they circled and soared, pressing past me with flashing eyes.

Wings, wings, wings! How can I describe their convolutions and their tints? They were all-powerful and soft—tawny, purple, deep blue, velvety black, with fiery dust on the rounded tips of their bowed feathers. Like precipitous clouds they stood, imperiously poised above the angels’ luminous shoulders; now and then an angel, in a kind of marvellous transport, as if unable to restrain his bliss, suddenly, for a single instant, unfurled his winged beauty, and it was like a burst of sunlight, like the sparkling of millions of eyes.

They passed in throngs, glancing heavenward. Their eyes were like jubilant chasms, and in those eyes I saw the syncope of flight. They came with gliding step, showered with flowers. The flowers spilled their humid sheen in flight; the sleek, bright beasts played, whirling and climbing; the birds chimed with bliss, soaring and dipping. I, a blinded, quaking beggar, stood at the edge of the road, and within my beggar’s soul the selfsame thought kept prattling: Cry out to them, tell them—oh, tell them that on the most splendid of God’s stars there is a land—my land—that is dying in agonizing darkness. I had the sense that, if I could grasp with my hand but one quivering shimmer, I would bring to my country such joy that human souls would instantly be illumined, and would circle beneath the plash and crackle of resurrected springtime, to the golden thunder of reawakened temples.

Reaching out with trembling hands, striving to bar the angels’ path, I began clutching at the hems of their bright chasubles, at the undulating, torrid fringes of their curved wings, which slipped through my fingers like downy flowers. I moaned, I dashed about, I deliriously beseeched their indulgence, but the angels trod ever forward, oblivious of me, their chiselled faces turned upward. They streamed in hosts to a heavenly feast, into an unendurably resplendent glade, where roiled and breathed a divinity about which I dared not think. I saw fiery cobwebs, splashes, designs on gigantic crimson, russet, violet wings, and, above me, a downy rustling passed in waves. The rainbow-crowned turquoise birds pecked, the flowers floated off from shiny boughs. “Wait, hear me out!” I cried, trying to embrace an angel’s vaporous legs, but the feet, impalpable, unstoppable, slipped through my extended hands, and the borders of the broad wings only scorched my lips as they swept past. In the distance, a golden clearing between lush, vivid cliffs was filling with the surging storm; the angels were receding; the birds ceased their high-pitched agitated laughter; the flowers no longer flew from the trees; I grew feeble, I fell mute.…

Then a miracle occurred. One of the last angels lingered, turned, and quietly approached me. I caught sight of his cavernous, staring, diamond eyes under the imposing arches of his brows. On the ribs of his outspread wings glistened what seemed like frost. The wings themselves were gray, an ineffable tint of gray, and each feather ended in a silvery sickle. His visage, the faintly smiling outline of his lips, and his straight clear forehead reminded me of features I had seen on earth. The curves, the gleaming, the charm of all the faces I had ever loved—the features of people who had long since departed from me—seemed to merge into one wondrous countenance. All the familiar sounds that came separately into contact with my hearing now seemed to blend into a single, perfect melody.

He came up to me. He smiled. I could not look at him. But, glancing at his legs, I noticed a network of azure veins on his feet and one pale birthmark. From these veins, from that little spot, I understood that he had not yet totally abandoned earth, that he might understand my prayer.

Then, bending my head, pressing my singed palms, smeared with bright clay, to my half-blinded eyes, I began recounting my sorrows. I wanted to explain how wondrous my land was, and how horrid its black syncope, but I did not find the words I needed. Hurrying, repeating myself, I babbled about trifles, about some burned-down house where once the sunny sheen of parquet had been reflected in an inclined mirror. I prattled of old books and old lindens, of knickknacks, of my first poems in a cobalt schoolboy notebook, of some gray boulder, overgrown with wild raspberries, in the middle of a field filled with scabiosa and daisies—but the most important thing I simply could not express. I grew confused, I stopped short, I began anew, and again, in my helpless, rapid speech, I spoke of rooms in a cool and resonant country house, of lindens, of my first love, of bumblebees sleeping on the scabiosa. It seemed to me that any minute—any minute!—I would get to what was most important, I would explain the whole sorrow of my homeland. But for some reason I could remember only minute, quite mundane things that were unable to speak or weep those corpulent, burning, terrible tears, about which I wanted to but could not tell.…

I fell silent, raised my head. The angel smiled a quiet, attentive smile, gazed fixedly at me with his elongated diamond eyes. I felt he understood me.

“Forgive me,” I exclaimed, meekly kissing the birthmark on his light-hued foot. “Forgive that I am capable of speaking only about the ephemeral, the trivial. You understand, though, my kindhearted, my gray angel. Answer me, help me, tell me, what can save my land?”

Embracing my shoulders for an instant with his dovelike wings, the angel pronounced a single word, and in his voice I recognized all those beloved, those silenced voices. The word he spoke was so marvellous that, with a sigh, I closed my eyes and bowed my head still lower. The fragrance and the melody of the word spread through my veins, rose like a sun within my brain; the countless cavities within my consciousness caught up and repeated its lustrous edenic song. I was filled with it. Like a taut knot, it beat within my temple, its dampness trembled upon my lashes, its sweet chill fanned through my hair, and it poured heavenly warmth over my heart.

I shouted it, I revelled in its every syllable, I violently cast up my eyes, which were filled with the radiant rainbows of joyous tears.…

Oh, Lord—the winter dawn glows greenish in the window, and I remember not what word it was that I shouted.


r/Nabokov • • 15d ago

Lolita Definitive version of Lolita?

11 Upvotes

I’m interested in this book, I’d like to have a copy that will help me comprehend as much as possible.

From what i’m aware of the text contains foreign sentences and a bunch of references i won’t grasp, if there’s a version that goes out of its way to clear all that up i’d really appreciate someone here to point me towards it, if there isn’t one worth mentioning, may i be pointed towards a version that you guys recommend?
I appreciate it lots.


r/Nabokov • • 16d ago

What is the best starting point

18 Upvotes

I had gotten myself 2 of nabokovs books; lolita and pale fire.
Reading them, it gave the feeling that these books are not the best starting point, and so I haven't finished them and plan to read them after getting more use to his writing.

Lolita, well Lolia; ignoring the subject, from what I read the prose are so dense but also easy to follow, its straight forward but confusing.

Pale fire is, well the prose are a lot easier to comprehend, the actual subject is impossible to comprehend, but oddly enough easy to follow, I have no clue how he does that.

I believe every writer has a book, or paper that acts as the perfect entry for the writer, they tend to be the more nicher works, and I really wonder, what would Nabokovs be? A thing that embodies his stories in a way thats easy to approach, I know dam well these 2 books are not the one


r/Nabokov • • 20d ago

Lolita You’re the one who saw it

Thumbnail
13 Upvotes

r/Nabokov • • Sep 18 '26

Lolita The old adage about a book cover remains true, be careful out there

Thumbnail
gallery
67 Upvotes

A bit of humor but I'm shocked to learn this isn't an isolated incident


r/Nabokov • • Sep 17 '26

Ada or ardor

Post image
97 Upvotes

I've had Ada or Ardor in my library for a while. I'm a non native English speaker and I had some troubles reading Lolita but I could read it complete and I loved it. Ada was on discount and I had read and watched some reviews of the story and some critics toward it and I liked what people told about the book, but all the content was in Spanish and I've been trying to enhance my comprehension in English. Is Ada hard to read? I've seen the language used by the author can be a bit kinky and pompous in this novel.


r/Nabokov • • Sep 15 '26

The mural at the Museum of Natural History, depicting the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth. It is referenced in Speak, Memory, because behind the Japanese delegate Takashira (高平) is Konstantin Nabokov (Набо́ков), Vladimir's uncle, a delegate from the Russian side.

Post image
38 Upvotes

The first time he saw this, Vlad pointed this out to his lepidopterist companion, who could not read Cyrillic and simply said:

"Sure, sure."


r/Nabokov • • Sep 14 '26

Lolita Lola-lollipop 🎀 Art by me.

Post image
2 Upvotes

r/Nabokov • • Sep 09 '26

Is there a book that isn’t subtle

17 Upvotes

Out of his bibliography? Like a book that’s in your face and doesn’t have the multiple barriers of linguistic architecture


r/Nabokov • • Sep 08 '26

Lolita Recent episode of The Book Club podcast is about Lolita.

Post image
19 Upvotes

To any of you folk who enjoy podcasts, I highly recommend the recent episode of The Book Club which is all about Lolita. Some great info in here about the novel.


r/Nabokov • • Sep 08 '26

Pale Fire Just finished Pale fire and… uhh I have so many questions Spoiler

20 Upvotes

So is Kinbote pr. Botkin a lonely insane imigrant from Nova Zembla? Who heard story of thr zemblan runaway king and mad his own personality around him and spoke to Shade about this to make himself feel better? Zembla a real place? Because at some point Kinbote writes about professors speaking about Zemblan revolution and how exhiled king looks like him, this is where one of them mentions kinote being anagrma for botkin… or can I not trust Kinbote here because in general he is unreliable narrator?
Or am I missing something completely?
Or is Zembla completely fictional?
Im really curious about the way some of you read and saw this whole story please share💝


r/Nabokov • • Sep 04 '26

Pale Fire canto 2-3 line numbers wrong

Thumbnail
gallery
14 Upvotes

solved? (2 edits)

this has been bugging me for over a year now, and never really found out if it was an unintentional misprint in my edition, un/intentional misprint in all editions, or what?

in my penguin modern classics edition pp. 42-44 end of canto 2 to beginning of canto 3 -- when Hazel drowns and Shade contemplates death -- the line numbers seem to imply there’s an extra line between lines 470-480, and that the last line of Canto 2 shouldn't be there. (i'm not sure if this should be the takeaway, but if we are to take the typesetting at face value I think this is the implication?)

if we take that extra line to be the dropped line "Infinity. / Out of his lakeside shack", then the '480' marking line 479 would be correct. After this the line numbers 490 and 500 both correct if line 479 were line 480. (I hope this makes sense). However, Kinbote's Commentary still refer to the correct line numbers, ie 475 A watchman, 490 From Exe, and 493 She took (pp. 173-4).

Then, the most obvious part of the mistake is the line after '500', where the last line of Canto 2 'Into a crackling, gulping swamp, and sank' should be line 501 according to the typesetting, but CK refers to the first line of Canto 3 'L'if, lifeless tree' as 'line 501', and 'The grand potato. / I.P.H., a lay' as 'line 502', which is still correct, but is obviously dissonant with the typesetting. Then line 510 marks the correct line number.

*I did find one mention of this in footnote 57 Isabella Healy Oppen's 'Musical Counterpoint in Thematic and Analytical Application in Nabokov's PF', but i found it to be a bit dissatisfying and wonder if others felt the same or had any other leads on it:

Which, strangely, exposes a ‘hole’ in the poem. By way of a strict reading via reference back to the poem and the ‘Commentary’, the line numbers labeling the poem fall out of concordance with the line number of the poem at line 479 — labeled as line 480. This could be a printing error, but seems to be an intentional mistake, as the line count concordances ‘right themselves’ again afterwards at poem line 510. This is a meaningful trick: especially because the hole happens before ‘the big potato’ moment, and right after Hazel’s death (Nabokov, Pale Fire, 43-44).

edit 1: actually as i posted this I'm realising perhaps it was fitting for the line 'into a crackling, gulping swamp, and sank' to be swallowed up by the line numbers; also fitting that 'Infinity. ...' to take an extra line.

so that's neat, does anyone know if anyones written on this specific detail before? I don't have any of the PF critical works on hand so i'd appreciate it : )

edit 2: ALSO the Foreword indicates Canto One has 166 lines and Canto Two 334 lines, adding up to 500, and also the symmetry of the palindromic cantos of 1000-1 lines -- the last line of Canto 2 should obviously be 500, and CK mentions it himself.

There's no indication that Shade marked the line numbers, or that Kinbote 'faithfully printed' the numbers exactly as Shade marked them, so is Kinbote giving Hazel 'life everlasting, based on a misprint'?


r/Nabokov • • Sep 03 '26

Lectures on... annoyance

Thumbnail
gallery
44 Upvotes

I just bought all the "Lectures on..." books, all three of them, they all have the same issue, they are printed too close to the spine, while there's also plenty of space to the edge. They are even from different series. It would've been so hard to just center them in a way so they would be easier to be read?

Rant over.


r/Nabokov • • Aug 28 '26

[dmitri] coincidence? i think yes

25 Upvotes

following up on my earlier post asking about dmitri, i been down a rabbit hole for the past 6 hours:

'dmitri nabokov' is an anagram for 'or vadim botkin'

i'm really doing anything but my dissertation lmao


r/Nabokov • • Aug 28 '26

Dmitri Nabokov writing under secret pen name

57 Upvotes

I read on wikipedia that VN's son dmitri publishied his own writings under a pen name that he never revealed, I hope this isn't disrespectful or parasocial, but are there any theories floating around about which writer this could be?

obviously it is entirely possible his book wasn't very famous or successful, but on the off-chance anyone has any theories : )