>>25324927 platitude. and ironically people are parroting nabokov when they say this, not understanding that style meant much more than the sound and cleverness of prose to him, meaning structure, character, all the unique observations and combinations necessary to create a unique world. if by meat you mean anything other than accustomed emotional triggers or a wholesale ideology (although there is much there to change someone's worldview) than he more than beats meat.
In other, less complicated, intentionally vague words: Nabokov did not have the skill or disposition to tackle universal themes like true great literature is able to do.
>>25325121 universal themes mean nothing. the things we share are very shallow. the depth comes from particularity. but if we are talking at that very shallow general empty book-cover level, all he wrote was about love and death.
One major midwit trap is believing in the vulgar dichotomy between "universal themes" and nabokov's styled and amoral writing. In reality style is substance, and Lolita can just as easily be read as a straightforwardly moral story as a self-contained work of art.
>>25324858 I really enjoyed Lolita, quite liked Despair, but then was disappointed that I didn't enjoy Pnin and Pale Fire as much as I thought I would. With Lolita there was a mix of great style and substance but Pnin felt more hollow overall and, while I'm sure Pale Fire is a great egg to crack, I just couldn't be bothered to get invested as I was finding the reading experience to be dull
>>25326385 if the value of a work of art lay in that, than "i had a wife, she died" would be lolita's equal. the value comes from detail, structure, originality, how the characters are fleshed out to become more than representations of ideas into living, breathing, clothes wearing, vehicle driving, medically ailing people. of course they are in the style of the stylized worlds they exist in which in nabokov's case is not as obviously distinct from "realism" as, say, kafka's characters, which leads some to say things like >>25326525
>>25326871 speak memory is one of his best books and arguably the most emotional. the colette chapter alone made me tear up twice once when he remembers floss, once when she calls him a monkey.
for ada or ardor, the characters arent as interesting or defined (beyond many quirks that feel pasted on top) as much as his best are, the allusions don't feel as meaningful as in pale fire, and there are some boring dinner scenes. it's just not as uniformly bombastic as it needs to be. i feel similar about it as people who call nabokov stiff feel about his other works.
>>25324858 Reading Nabokov is like watching a porno where the hottest guy you've ever seen masturbates to himself in a gilded mirror. He's so fucking hot. He jerks himself off so well. But you're still watching someone masturbate to their own image in a fancy mirror.
>>25327570 if by masturbate you mean show off impressive writing, then sure. does he actually congratulate himself in his writing sometimes? yes he does. but the old kook deserves it desu.