Відео

I was surprised that you couldn't remember the exact years when each novel takes place in, because after all, they are in their titles: 1888, 1903, 1918. Right? But then I realised English translations (at least in three Penguin covers) don't have their original titles (which are very original indeed); they are plainly named as: The Romantic, The Anarchist, The Realist. In German the titles are very, very different. 1888. Pasenow order die Romantik (Die Schlafwandler) 1903. Esch oder die Anarchie (Die Schlafwandler) 1918. Huguenau oder die Sachlichkeit (Die Schlafwandler) Notice: die Romantik does not mean the Romantic, but the Romanticism; die Anarchie does not mean the Anarchist, but the Anarchism; die Sachlichkeit does not mean the Realist, but the Objectivity, or perhaps in Broch case, more as a matter-of-factness, or prosaism. I think this is valid point. It changes drasticly how you read them. Not as personal stories of singular individuals (forced by Penguin covers!) but as an epic of, well, the epoch itself. I mention the titles because I fell in love with the novels (I see them as three separate novels rather than one big volume) the first time I saw their covers in our local library when I was still in high school. I read them in Finnish translations, which actually have even more complex titles, because they put, for a reason or another, three extra words in them: each protagonists professions: Lieutenant Pasenow, Accountant Esch, Businessman Hughenau! I still wonder why, but it's pretty cool. As a young cocky sophmore philosopher I judged these books by their covers, and boy, was I right: they were exeptional and highly original from inside too. Here's how they stand in Finnish versions: Luutnantti Pasenow. Romantiika. 1888. Unissaankulkijat I Kirjanpitäjä Esch. Anarkia. 1903. Unissaankulkijat II Liikemies Hughenau. Asiallisuus. 1918. Unissaankulkijat III

I'm currently reading Mrs. Dalloway and I feel that your analysis I will help me to stay focused and to better comprehend the book.

I discovered Xenophon's apology when my mother did an Arts Foundation Course with the Open University in the 1970s and there was a philosophy section which involved "comparing and contrasting" Xenophon's and Plato's Apologies. I was allowed to read this and my eyes were opened to there being more to Socrates than Plato's version.

If I ever try Roth again, it will be this book. Thanks Jack.

Another great vid. Unfortunately I was too young to understand this book when I read it as a 17 year old. May have to revisit it...

Thanks for your review. This was the first Roth I read, and I still think it's the best. I recall the energy of his prose style as striking me right away. When I later read Celine's Journey to the End of the Night, I found the tone and prose style very similar, electric, propulsive, so I suspect Celine may have been an influence on Roth.

A refreshing review

amazing thank you

YES ANYTHING TITLED METAMORPHASIS SEEMS BORING BUT REMEMBER HE WROTE IT IN ROMANIAN U NEED TO READ IT THERE EVEN 96:01 SAYS THAT THANKS, لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

Yeah, well, the thing is... it's pretty much pron, so don't give it to underage students. This should be obvious, but sadly in the modern world it ain't.

was looking for an in depth review of the book, loved your video about and the other recommendations in the end. Thanks for making it!

What does the Arabic language say exactly about Islam? ❤

ive read 3 PARKER richard stark written novels. youve encouraged me to search out more. TRAVIS Mc GEE read all 21 books. Best series ever written. ROSS MaCDONALD with detective LEw ARCHER ( adapted to film in HARPER w tail newman are must read series )

Wonderful video! We actually call her Leyli in Persian not Layla so I don’t think it was just a choice by the translator to make it rhyme with tree

I'm reading Satantango his first book in the series, but it's nice to know that the next book is good. Thanks for a fine analysis.

The Tunnel is one of my favorite novels; I'm planning to reread it soon. The Pedersen kid is also one of my favorite short stories. I think it has a great combination of beautiful writing, intense character study, and narrative symbolism. The last sentence is particularly haunting. One of my favorite details is how the final word in the story is "joy," implying that it's a happy ending despite all the terrible things that happened.

Libra is his magnum opus

It was interesting to compare it to Kafka's stories. I only read the one where the character turns into a giant insect.

Just finished the broom of the system, so naturally I ran to UA-cam to find some analysis videos. This one was fantastic, thank you

I recently finished this book and instantly felt the urge to re-read it, but since I can't right now I decided to search for reviews. I'm really happy I found your video, because you pointed out a lot of the things I keep ruminating about. Thank you!

Great video, glad you do the excerpts. Love conspiratorial novels like this since we see so many people become engrossed in conspiracy to try to make sense of the world around them

I have a miniature poodle, and for the past 1,493 days whenever I walk into the kitchen, open the refrigerator door, grab some food, shut the door, and turn around, he is behind me, staring at me. I’m kinda starting to think it’s more than coincidence.

I found the connection of the alternate mailing system with the disaffected, the ignored so very moving. Yes some of these individuals were loathsome, but unlike so many other characters in the book, they saw Oedipa Maas.

I will always be envious of your engaging perspective-widening thoughts on literature and the fact you are a high school maths teacher... your eminence in contrasting fields is so rare

Great discussion and review. I haven’t read this one.

nabokov's manipulation of linguistics to evoke a sense of empathy for the unreliable narrator is unequivocally outstanding, his dreamy prose style with the most unique vocabulary mesmerised me to continue with the novel and acknowledge his greatness.

Danny the Champion of the World is a fantastic book. Perhaps the warmest and gentlest story Dahl ever wrote, but never trite or sentimental. Essential reading for sparky parents.

😊 Lp😊P 😊ll L 000 L

L 00

L

The great things about plays is they are mostly dialogue you really don't ever have to SEE them Brand was meant as a read RADIO play (you can read aloud any stage descriptions and not really miss anything) never to be staged!!!

I just picked this up, thanks for the review

Why not start with what interests you? Plato is so complex and diverse that most people won't be attracted to this type of reading. So for those who are, why limit their entry point? I did my senior seminar on Plato in undergrad and we focused on just paragraphs and sentences for weeks. You couldn't get through more than four dialogues in a semester if you tried--at least were I studied.

I remember Lolita primarily as a road novel, at least as far as the plot goes. But what attracts me to the book is the world building and the narrative technique. I love getting lost in what many might describe as pointless details. Hardly a sentence goes by that I don't find myself on Google referencing a novel mentioned or maybe a brand name, sentences far more detailed than those describing what many would assume was the main attraction of the novel. Definitely seeing comparisons to my limited experience with Proust. Looking forward to Pale Fire, Stoner, Sterne, and other comparable / contrastable works.

How would you compare loki odinson and satan and make them positive?

One of the more subtle clues that it was a dream was when he kept using the term "Old Chap' which for me did not belong in St Petersburg but aristocratic London, just my two cents though , greetings from Ireland btw.

I think this gentlemen might like Penguin books.

The Siberian Tiger,knew a lot about A.Pushkin (D.Hvorotovsky) 2:15

Kind of confused why Ellroy has written two Freddy Otash books SINCE PUBLISHING THIS STORM classified as Freddy Otash books while in a interview he said The Enchanters is the third book in The Second L.A. QUINTENT now (maybe Widespread Panic a standalone book) really interested in his CRIME books have no time in my life to read alternate fictionalized history would start at the bottom (Ellroy's top ha,ha,) where I started White Jazz!!!

Thanks for posting this.

We have the same copy of the complete Plato

Cosmic horror is a very underrated and untapped genre in literature, especially those who do it well. Which I definitely think this would. However, I’ve of course never read the book, and would very much like to. But I can’t help but feel it’s first-person narrative might hinder it a bit. Can I ask how you think it’s first-person structure might fit this novel? I really struggle to get into stories that are written in the first person.

As someone who values beauty and ingenuity of language most in assessing literary merit, it is the author's remarkable dexterity with language that makes this novel great and a personal favorite.

This was the book that got me into literature. The way you view this book changes over time. I first read this as a teenager and was enthralled by it. Nabokov is a once in a century writer and he made 19 year old me root for Humbert. I think we value this book because First, Nabokov is a genius. You mentioned the musical nature of his prose style and anyone who as read the first paragraph or so of Lolita won’t be able to disagree with his remarkable command of the English language. However, what stood out for me for years after reading this book for the first time was the last few sentences, “I’m thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge or art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita”. The theme of art is an integral part of the novel and all these years later, I still haven’t come across anything like this passage, connecting 40,000 years of tradition to a passion he feels for another person. Second, Nabokov takes the great novels he grew up on and pushes their central, taboo themes to extreme positions. In his Lectures on Literature and Lectures on Russian Literature respectively, Nabokov discuss “Madam Beavery” and “Anna Karenina” in typical detail, and atypical reverence. I sometimes wonder if he read Poe’s “How I Wrote the Raven” and mechanically thought about the next step after breaking the taboo of adultery. Perhaps he did this again with Pale Fire (homosexuality) Ada (incest). These themes captivated readers in Nabokov’s parent’s and grandparent’s generation and captivate readers today. Third, and I am repeating myself, he is skilled at making terrible people into sympathetic characters. You’ve recently read Paradise Lost so you’re familiar with this angle and I don’t need to go into detail about it. I will say Humbert Humber, for all his flaws is highly intelligent. The fact that we, the audience, find that compelling is an indictment on our value system. Fourth, and I think most importantly, is the confusion over the nature of love. I think Americans, for along time, have had the view that true love looks like the destructive limerence of the unexamined and popular conceptions of Romeo and Juliet. Part of us can forgive Humbert’s crimes because he “loves” Lolita. Never mind her extreme youth, his relationship with her mother, the bizarre and dehumanizing “nymphet” categorizing he imposes on her, he feels special emotions to her and thus he has no choice but to act on them, we tell ourselves. I think this may be a function of, and a criticism of American movies where two movie stars look at one another in certain camera angles and we understand the director wants us to understand they have a special, almost sacred, connection. Fifth, the Americana. As you mention the car culture, but also the “warn Levies and torn tee shirts” Finaly, the enduring impact. As you say, it’s on all the lists. My favorite throw away line of all time was the TV “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmit “, where a character at a book club said “did you know Nabokov could be creepy in 3 languages?” All in all, at 36. I think Lolita is a great book, but one that I don’t really want to read again. A few years ago, I asked my teenage niece what her favorite book was and she said “Lolita”. My initial reaction was disturbance, and then understanding. I agree with you that Pale Fire is better. Enjoy Ada, there’s a lot more on the texture of time.

I recall the language and mockery of clueless mid century america being first rate. Then spending most of the book feeling in on HH's scathing snobbery' looking down on everyone and everything' and then by the end of it realizing he was the worst of all. This is a stretch, but I think in a course the book might pair well with the autobio of malcom x. Similarly where most of the book is him expertly criticizing america and racism, only to watch him later realize and reckon with the disrepute of his own black Muslim mentors/leaders, see poor white muslims in mecca, etc. Spend most of the books sneering one direction, grappling with genuine problems with the US culture, only to have mirror flipped on the narrator (and reader) near the end.

I have a weakness for road trip stories (On the Road is a massive gap for me), so that aspect of Lolita was something that fascinated me like it did you. The way the beauty of the language and HH’s charisma can almost make you forget that he’s a pedophile and start to relate to him was an interesting aspect of the novel as well. And then there is just the beautiful, musical writing. But like you, I also don’t find myself as wildly in love with the novel as some are.

I’ve never read it in its entirety, but when I read the first chunk in college (I would often get distracted and fail to finish books as an undergraduate), I was STUNNED by the beauty and playfulness of the prose itself. Like you, I’m a sub-vocalizer, and so the sentences made an undeniable music in my head, which was intensely pleasurable.

Mr Raconteur ive been waiting for this

HH is a wicked man but he is also human. There is beauty of his language and the brutality of his behavior. The novel would lose its power if one of the two elements were removed.

For me the achievement (value) of Lolita is the way Nabokov puts us in the head of a terrible person and creates sympathy (?) in the reader that forces you to constantly fight against the almost constant pressure to be charmed and drawn into HH’s pov. We spend so much time in his head (going through the mundanity of travel for instance) that we forget we should be rooting for him to get caught. We are encouraged to forget that he is a monster though Nabokov clearly shows us that he is. It is unsettling and subtle, awful and insidious. I can’t think of any other book that achieves that.