Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.01 AVERAGE
4.01 AVERAGE
dark
funny
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Incest
In terms of language and prose it’s an absolute beauty if a book, but I struggled with the plot and content, which is tough with something this long
Bittiği gibi baştan okumak isteyeceğiniz kitaplardan. Joyce, Proust ve Tolstoy arasında gidip gelirken bu yazarları anıştırdıkça keyiflendiriyor.
This didn't even feel like Nabokov to me. There is a reason, I guess, why this book has sat on my shelf unread for five years, occasionally taken down for me to read a few chapters and then put back so I could reread [b: Pale Fire|7805|Pale Fire|Vladimir Nabokov|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388155863l/7805._SY75_.jpg|1222661].
I made myself slog through the entire thing this time, though, and I'm not sure why. It alternates between adolescent sex fantasy and meanderings on the substance of time, framed by a premise that the story takes place on a mirror-world to our own, a premise that consistently feels half-integrated to me. It didn't tie together well, and the prose didn't sparkle the way I expect from Nabokov.
I made myself slog through the entire thing this time, though, and I'm not sure why. It alternates between adolescent sex fantasy and meanderings on the substance of time, framed by a premise that the story takes place on a mirror-world to our own, a premise that consistently feels half-integrated to me. It didn't tie together well, and the prose didn't sparkle the way I expect from Nabokov.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
reflective
relaxing
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Not to be dramatic but this is the best book I’ve ever read and I will read it 100 more times. I have not been this obsessed w a book since I was like 10. Life changing and beautiful and hellish and incoherent and dreamlike but lucid and hyperreal. What the fuck, Love u Vladimir
I really wanted to like Ada, but I just didn't. I feel almost guilty for rating it so low because I do feel like I'm not a good reader, but I just wanted to read something for fun and it's not really that kind of book (unless literature analysis is your fun and you speak a few additional languages fluently, in which case you still might not find it fun but the odds are better). Basically I think the book is probably/maybe really good? but my gosh I did not enjoy it.
I was drawn in by promises of epic, all-consuming taboo romance and experimental writing.
The writing is really hard going for the first few pages, after which it suddenly changes and is much more readable and enjoyable but still very Nabokov so I did get my interesting writing style at least.
The writing style is vaguely what I expected, if a bit pretentious, so it's the actual content that really brings it down for me. The whole book feels on the edge of being a parody of aristocratic, educated people but at the same time it never really clicked with me in that way. Similarly, the romance never even really clicked for me apart from in some brief scenes, especially in parts 2 and 5.
What stands out to me looking back at the story is really just a few parts (some at Ardis, anything with Cordula, a certain maritime tragedy). Partially this is maybe because I just really hate Van. Not just his character but his narrative voice. He is a prime example of the kind of male voice that is endemic in highly praised artsy old fiction and it is BORING. He is educated, intelligent, rich, attractive, over-sexed, good at everything he tries, witty, from good inbred stock. Women fall at his feet and he deserves it. He gets whatever he wants without trying or even wanting it that hard. I don't know if I just missed it but unlike e.g. Lolita I couldn't feel any real self-awareness from the book about its paedophilic and lecherous narrator. It may well be some sort of artistic device/choice/commentary/satire/whatever that went over my head, but it was irritating the whole way through and I couldn't help but feel that the story would have been more interesting through literally any other characters eyes.
Large swathes of the book feel impenetrable to "the casual reader" (me). Puns in multiple languages for example. I understood a sparse few references and puns amongst probably thousands. And the edition I have contains notes written by Nabokov pretending to be a fictional editor, which I saw other people call funny?? If there are jokes there I didn't get them.
To me, the filthy casual, it suffers from having way more style than story. For example the sci-fi aspects (I don't know how else to refer to these) jumped out at me whenever they appeared because for most of the book I was starved of content that wasn't Van getting his p wet or being horrendously jealous. And I want justice for poor Lucette. She deserved more page time and personality.
I was drawn in by promises of epic, all-consuming taboo romance and experimental writing.
The writing is really hard going for the first few pages, after which it suddenly changes and is much more readable and enjoyable but still very Nabokov so I did get my interesting writing style at least.
The writing style is vaguely what I expected, if a bit pretentious, so it's the actual content that really brings it down for me. The whole book feels on the edge of being a parody of aristocratic, educated people but at the same time it never really clicked with me in that way. Similarly, the romance never even really clicked for me apart from in some brief scenes, especially in parts 2 and 5.
What stands out to me looking back at the story is really just a few parts (some at Ardis, anything with Cordula, a certain maritime tragedy). Partially this is maybe because I just really hate Van. Not just his character but his narrative voice. He is a prime example of the kind of male voice that is endemic in highly praised artsy old fiction and it is BORING. He is educated, intelligent, rich, attractive, over-sexed, good at everything he tries, witty, from good inbred stock. Women fall at his feet and he deserves it. He gets whatever he wants without trying or even wanting it that hard. I don't know if I just missed it but unlike e.g. Lolita I couldn't feel any real self-awareness from the book about its paedophilic and lecherous narrator. It may well be some sort of artistic device/choice/commentary/satire/whatever that went over my head, but it was irritating the whole way through and I couldn't help but feel that the story would have been more interesting through literally any other characters eyes.
Large swathes of the book feel impenetrable to "the casual reader" (me). Puns in multiple languages for example. I understood a sparse few references and puns amongst probably thousands. And the edition I have contains notes written by Nabokov pretending to be a fictional editor, which I saw other people call funny?? If there are jokes there I didn't get them.
To me, the filthy casual, it suffers from having way more style than story. For example the sci-fi aspects (I don't know how else to refer to these) jumped out at me whenever they appeared because for most of the book I was starved of content that wasn't Van getting his p wet or being horrendously jealous. And I want justice for poor Lucette. She deserved more page time and personality.
challenging
emotional
funny
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
There's no way to summarize this book in a short little review. It needs to be cut apart piece by piece and reviewed chapter by chapter. That is not an endeavor I have the time or energy for, but as a talkative person I do need to summarize some of my thoughts.
Amongst what feels like separate novellas consisting entirely of one's mind's worst intrusive thoughts and deep tangents on philosophy, nature and invented history, Nabokov hid aspects of the human condition that most writers are unable to touch upon... Or maybe the intrusive thoughts and tangents are what it all just really is. As a reader, you're made to feel like you are a voyeur through a horny Victorian teenager/young man/middle aged man's eyes, and like you really should stop looking, even though he, at the solid age of ninety-seven, really wants you to look. Van Veen reaches a hand out from between the pages and reveals what you couldn't pay a real person to reveal (except for Reddit where people would absolutely post about it).
And it's collaborative, too: from page one it's clear Ada is there with him, guiding his hand. What remains unclear is why, as every chapter you learn exactly how terrible of a person Van Veen is - he tells you of this in excruciating detail, down to every little thought. While the girl he's pining for grows up and has a life of her own, the straight line of Van Veen from the age of fourteen to seventy runs solely through his genitalia, and it's not exactly clear how he manages to make an academic name for himself in between. Oh wait, no, it is, as he takes half a page to explain that he "donates" to all the institutions.
There are, of course (and spoken about at length by other people) gratuitous scenes in this book that could be done away with without removing any of the value of the rest and I'm not sure if even the most staunch preservationists of "art" would not agree with me. At the same time, without any plot to speak of and with imagery you'd rather not conjure, this book has some of the best character interactions I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing, is exquisitely hilarious and also somehow captures the essence of existing as a stupid little teenager. I've said this already, but every line serves to drive a sharp point onto how terrible of a person Van really is. There is no genre to this book: it's faux-autobiographical, it's mockery, it's a tragicomedy, it's a philosophical treatise, it's an antimoral tale and somehow also gothic horror if you imagine it with the right lighting.
I don't know if everyone should read this book... Probably not. You should probably, definitely be very pretentious, and also have a very strong stomach for it. It is (re)traumatizing. But reading it should be a shallow exercise to indulge in an old man's tangents and humor running through every page. Plot is secondary here: Nabokov wants to show you that he is smart, and that he is very, VERY funny. So, do go on and wonder what it would be like if he had Twitter.
Amongst what feels like separate novellas consisting entirely of one's mind's worst intrusive thoughts and deep tangents on philosophy, nature and invented history, Nabokov hid aspects of the human condition that most writers are unable to touch upon... Or maybe the intrusive thoughts and tangents are what it all just really is. As a reader, you're made to feel like you are a voyeur through a horny Victorian teenager/young man/middle aged man's eyes, and like you really should stop looking, even though he, at the solid age of ninety-seven, really wants you to look. Van Veen reaches a hand out from between the pages and reveals what you couldn't pay a real person to reveal (except for Reddit where people would absolutely post about it).
And it's collaborative, too: from page one it's clear Ada is there with him, guiding his hand. What remains unclear is why, as every chapter you learn exactly how terrible of a person Van Veen is - he tells you of this in excruciating detail, down to every little thought. While the girl he's pining for grows up and has a life of her own, the straight line of Van Veen from the age of fourteen to seventy runs solely through his genitalia, and it's not exactly clear how he manages to make an academic name for himself in between. Oh wait, no, it is, as he takes half a page to explain that he "donates" to all the institutions.
There are, of course (and spoken about at length by other people) gratuitous scenes in this book that could be done away with without removing any of the value of the rest and I'm not sure if even the most staunch preservationists of "art" would not agree with me. At the same time, without any plot to speak of and with imagery you'd rather not conjure, this book has some of the best character interactions I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing, is exquisitely hilarious and also somehow captures the essence of existing as a stupid little teenager. I've said this already, but every line serves to drive a sharp point onto how terrible of a person Van really is. There is no genre to this book: it's faux-autobiographical, it's mockery, it's a tragicomedy, it's a philosophical treatise, it's an antimoral tale and somehow also gothic horror if you imagine it with the right lighting.
I don't know if everyone should read this book... Probably not. You should probably, definitely be very pretentious, and also have a very strong stomach for it. It is (re)traumatizing. But reading it should be a shallow exercise to indulge in an old man's tangents and humor running through every page. Plot is secondary here: Nabokov wants to show you that he is smart, and that he is very, VERY funny. So, do go on and wonder what it would be like if he had Twitter.
Admittedly I shouldn't have tried to read this while watching Sesame Street with my son and conducting him to potty training every 25 minutes. Nabokov's descriptive talents are incredible, as usual, but are offset by some of the most impenetrable abstraction I've ever encountered (with interjections by Elmo). Constant blurbs of Russian and French (sixteen pages worth of corresponding notes in the back) just...concentrate...focus...could not do.
I actually read the [b:Novels, 1969-1974: Ada / Transparent Things / Look at the Harlequins!|54991|Novels, 1969-1974 Ada / Transparent Things / Look at the Harlequins!|Vladimir Nabokov|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347495328s/54991.jpg|53590] version but after finishing Van Veen's adventures - maybe I'm a poor excuse for an academic but [b:Lolita|18133|Lolita|Vladimir Nabokov|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1372767118s/18133.jpg|1268631] was so, so much better in every respect.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I actually read the [b:Novels, 1969-1974: Ada / Transparent Things / Look at the Harlequins!|54991|Novels, 1969-1974 Ada / Transparent Things / Look at the Harlequins!|Vladimir Nabokov|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347495328s/54991.jpg|53590] version but after finishing Van Veen's adventures - maybe I'm a poor excuse for an academic but [b:Lolita|18133|Lolita|Vladimir Nabokov|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1372767118s/18133.jpg|1268631] was so, so much better in every respect.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
slow-paced
The book has child/cousin/sibling sex and a loooot of rants. Slow read