Scan barcode
hollyway's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I think the only time I have felt this dumb while attempting to read a book was when I tried to rawdog Shakespeare. Can I say I have understood and absorbed this novel? Absolutely not! But I sort of loved it anyway. Having only read Lolita by Nabokov, I had no idea Ada or Ardor would be so dense and oblique. Once I realised what I was in for and that there was no way I would fully comprehend this novel on a first read (at least, not at this point in my life when I am crazy busy and chronically exhausted and unable to give it my full time and energy) I tried to let go of the pressure to fully interpret every line and instead just submit to the sensory experience of the novel. Not that I didn't understand or follow anything, or attempt to rise to the challenge at all, I just didn't want to turn it into a dreaded chore. I'm sure there will be some background processing going on, but I'm also going to seek out some analysis when I get the chance and will definitely be revisiting the book at some point because it's a fascinating work that I would definitely love to understand on a deeper level.
Some thoughts:
- I know this is, to some extent, a satire, and the ironic tone was pretty much consistent, but I'm not sure how much we as readers were supposed to buy into the romance aspect of the story. I'm inclined to say we weren't, as it almost feels as though Nabokov is mocking such a reader when describing that Van and Ada's incestuous love had become a legend of sorts to the simple folk on the periphery of Ardis. I certainly was not rooting for them and did feel that Van had corrupted Ada (and Lucette). But, much like Lolita, there seems the double truth of sinister and ridiculous perversion coinciding with - according to the narrator - genuine tenderness. I definitely did find, though, that the latter was less prevalent in this novel, where the passions of the central relationship were often described in a flippant or tawdry manner (seemingly to give lie to the idea of it being "above" its incestuous nature).
- In Van we have another unreliable narrator who is in many ways just as foul, monstrous and egotistical as Humbert Humbert, but on this first read at least, I found Van less interesting to hate than Humbert.
- I am no stranger to classics or to experimental novels, but this was truly a unique and uniquely difficult experience. It is so strange to read a string of English (okay, often NOT English, Nabokov, you bastard) words and feel yourself unable to make sense of them, not because it's inherently nonsensical but because the author is just on another wavelength of language. It is honestly fun and cool sometimes to read something that is legitimately challenging and pushing your brain to try to interpret this mass of words as an abstract art form. And like, I think it's okay not to fully "get it" the first time, just like we won't "get" every painting or sculpture we see. You still come away with impressions, however vague. That's art, baby!
Some thoughts:
- I know this is, to some extent, a satire, and the ironic tone was pretty much consistent, but I'm not sure how much we as readers were supposed to buy into the romance aspect of the story. I'm inclined to say we weren't, as it almost feels as though Nabokov is mocking such a reader when describing that Van and Ada's incestuous love had become a legend of sorts to the simple folk on the periphery of Ardis. I certainly was not rooting for them and did feel that Van had corrupted Ada (and Lucette). But, much like Lolita, there seems the double truth of sinister and ridiculous perversion coinciding with - according to the narrator - genuine tenderness. I definitely did find, though, that the latter was less prevalent in this novel, where the passions of the central relationship were often described in a flippant or tawdry manner (seemingly to give lie to the idea of it being "above" its incestuous nature).
- In Van we have another unreliable narrator who is in many ways just as foul, monstrous and egotistical as Humbert Humbert, but on this first read at least, I found Van less interesting to hate than Humbert.
- I am no stranger to classics or to experimental novels, but this was truly a unique and uniquely difficult experience. It is so strange to read a string of English (okay, often NOT English, Nabokov, you bastard) words and feel yourself unable to make sense of them, not because it's inherently nonsensical but because the author is just on another wavelength of language. It is honestly fun and cool sometimes to read something that is legitimately challenging and pushing your brain to try to interpret this mass of words as an abstract art form. And like, I think it's okay not to fully "get it" the first time, just like we won't "get" every painting or sculpture we see. You still come away with impressions, however vague. That's art, baby!
carmenx9's review
4.0
4.5 stars, but giving it 4 because I am way too stupid for much of Nabokov's wordplay (aside from the ridiculous punning and self-conscious dad jokes), and this took me way too long to read.
I am sure I will get more out of it in 30 years, but what is here is exuberant and deeply, beautifully strange. The first parting, the second pre-duel letter, the end of Part 2's object transformation, and the bit before the reunion at the end of Part 3 absolutely blew me away. The alternate universe-esque setting added the required transformative magic and distance for this strange series of coincidence and profane love to keep dragging me back when the words gave me a headache. Also, absolute catnip for anyone who's studied Russian, German, and French enough to be dangerous but not enough to be good.
- for we are visitors and investigators in a strange universe, indeed, indeed.
I am sure I will get more out of it in 30 years, but what is here is exuberant and deeply, beautifully strange. The first parting, the second pre-duel letter, the end of Part 2's object transformation, and the bit before the reunion at the end of Part 3 absolutely blew me away. The alternate universe-esque setting added the required transformative magic and distance for this strange series of coincidence and profane love to keep dragging me back when the words gave me a headache. Also, absolute catnip for anyone who's studied Russian, German, and French enough to be dangerous but not enough to be good.
- for we are visitors and investigators in a strange universe, indeed, indeed.
whatsupelisabeth's review
3.0
This was a lot, as I am sure it is supposed to be.
The incestuous underage romance goes into way more graphic detail and is way more enthusiastic about the affair than I (and hopefully most readers) would prefer. Yeah, I know - unreliable narrator, Nabokov is so great at shining a sarcastic light on the vices of our world, yada yada.
But man, it takes a good chunk of effort to read the beautiful, romantic descriptions of teenage sibling hook-ups while fully buying that the author kept a healthy emotional distance from his characters. Especially since our male protagonist here, as opposed to his Lolita counterpart, lacks most of the self-awareness one would hope for. Then again, maybe this kind of portrayal is exactly what made Nabokov a master of his craft.
Aside from that:
* The language is beautiful though sometimes exhaustingly so. Also, if you want to brush up on your pretentious French/German/Russian, this is your book.
* The setting in a parallel world to ours that is similar but not the same is a very fun concept but oddly unnecessary.
* The chapter on his philosophy of time felt like the cinema making me begrudingly watch an extended advert just before the climax of a movie.
The incestuous underage romance goes into way more graphic detail and is way more enthusiastic about the affair than I (and hopefully most readers) would prefer. Yeah, I know - unreliable narrator, Nabokov is so great at shining a sarcastic light on the vices of our world, yada yada.
But man, it takes a good chunk of effort to read the beautiful, romantic descriptions of teenage sibling hook-ups while fully buying that the author kept a healthy emotional distance from his characters. Especially since our male protagonist here, as opposed to his Lolita counterpart, lacks most of the self-awareness one would hope for. Then again, maybe this kind of portrayal is exactly what made Nabokov a master of his craft.
Aside from that:
* The language is beautiful though sometimes exhaustingly so. Also, if you want to brush up on your pretentious French/German/Russian, this is your book.
* The setting in a parallel world to ours that is similar but not the same is a very fun concept but oddly unnecessary.
* The chapter on his philosophy of time felt like the cinema making me begrudingly watch an extended advert just before the climax of a movie.
anna813's review
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
hozoneb's review
challenging
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
nat_ali88's review against another edition
informative
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
nababbo's review against another edition
5.0
Per tutta la durata della lettura ho avuto la netta impressione che Nabokov si sia divertito non poco a scrivere questo libro.
stjernesvarme's review
challenging
dark
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
joannaautumn's review
I honestly think most readers can't understand this book without an analysis. That's why most of us dislike it because we don't understand it, not really.
Anyway, rating this wouldn't be fair, so I'll read some analysis in the next few weeks(or months/years) and then decide what to think.
On another note, I don't think I'll read another Nabokov book for quite a while.
Anyway, rating this wouldn't be fair, so I'll read some analysis in the next few weeks(or months/years) and then decide what to think.
On another note, I don't think I'll read another Nabokov book for quite a while.