Essay on “Lectures on Russian Literature”
Worst of all when someone infringes on our stereotypes. Hence the negative reviews. Why, my God, he is a reptile creeping in his zasral America Dostoevsky criticized! (I remember a phrase from the “death Tarelkina” (approximately): I have read Marx, Marx, I do not like). And then there are two approaches: either just spit on all the arguments and say that the author of a pompous fool, or try to understand why, in fact, he does not like Dostoevsky. Disagree – God forbid. Just for a moment to look at it from his point of view. In my opinion, this is what is the right approach to the book. Nabokov, as well as any person who is entitled to their own opinion. Especially because in the Russian literature and Russian literary trail he left. For example, a 1100-page commentary on Eugene Onegin. And, as I understand it, the author Nabokov reviews do not really read “that the works of Nabokov was familiar only in” Lolita “.” Lolita – a work of late, English-speaking, Nabokov. It may not even be his best book. And of course it does not suit for the first acquaintance with the writer. I utverzhadayu that Nabokov was really (there will probably be a long time) the best Russian writers. This creative freedom in the handling of our great and mighty was not in any of his predecessors. And, therefore, he is entitled to some categorical statements. I would, of course, never allowed himself to familiar Dostoevsky pat on the shoulder, but he can. In addition, we are too selfish (we do not Nabokov!). At each corner of Orem GREAT RUSSIAN LITERATURE (and usually do from all this literature, but books included in the school curriculum did not read), and did not suspect the existence of, for example, the great French literature. “Competent” people in Russia know the names of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, but often not heard anything about Proust or Flaubert. The competent French (as well as any other European) certainly knows about the existence of both. For example, I read them all (of course in translation). And Flaubert to Proust, I liked more. Nabokov is trying to look at our literature from the perspective of world literature (and you have not trained your French or English, as Nabokov read books in the original language!). And then he puts Flaubert, Proust, Kafka, Chekhov and Tolstova in a row – this, in my opinion, very flattering assessment. And in the end, the writer of the book may be different evaluation criteria than the ordinary reader. Dostoevsky was not satisfied with his stylistic flaws, hysterical tone, etc. Yes, perhaps Nabokov for the trees to see the forest. Those. how despite all this curve style literally come to life (sometimes even against the wishes of the reader) by Dostoevsky people. (But not “come to life” – rather begin to move, to breathe and function) .Tut need to talk about the features of color perception: worlds Nabokov writer with bright multi-colored light and shade, with dew and little insects, in general, with all that is necessary for respiration and life. Worlds (though there probably should speak only about the characters – not without reason Nabokov remarks that Dostoevsky playwright rather than a novelist) Dostoevsky like pencil sketches. Very sharp and memorable. For example, I like this style. And Nabokov – maybe he just could not live there?