| Author | Message | ||
     Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
Just found this site. The debates are fascinating.....history, the arts, religion, ideas. Whatever you like to discuss. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/subjects | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Is there a discussion about boobies? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
I want to go there to talk about farting. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
For those interested enough in any of those debates the link is there, anyway. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
And there is a section on writers...Borges, Plath, Nabokov, Robert Frost and Simone de Beauvoir etc. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/the-best-of/great-writers | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Is there a section on Dan Brown? I find the philosphical interpretation of his literary masterpieces endlessly fascinating. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
I agree with Stephen Fry about respect for faith and then he opens it up further. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
That's a very useful site, Ally. But surely the Nabokov dates must be wrong! | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
Really. I'll go and take a look, too. Shame about that when the site is so good. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
You're tempting me to try a bit of Nabokov, Ramsey - especially after reading your praise for William Golding (I love 'Free Fall' too, ever read 'Darkness Visible'?), Graham Greene & Franz Kafka on that recent rant (agreed with every word)! I've only read one Nabokov short story which impressed me greatly and inspired several instant re-reads to make sure I was understanding it properly (always a good sign): 'The Visit To The Museum' (1958) in the 7th Fontana Ghost Book - selected by your old mate Robert Aickman. I like the sound of 'Bend Sinister' and think I might start there rather than the obvious one. I do love a good dystopia. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.78.35.185 |
Stevie, reading Nabokov is a pleasure. Bend Sinister is indeed very good. A charming, lighter read is "Pnin", which is one of my all-time fave books. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Don't start me off about Nabakov... | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
As long as you don't want to start with the obvious one, Stevie, Pale Fire is astonishing, while Laughter in the Dark shows how brilliantly he could handle conventional narrative. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Thanks, Ramsey! What's the closest he's ever come to writing a horror novel? Seeing as we're discussing definitions of the genre elsewhere. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.240.93.147 |
Stevie: I read about 6 Nabokov books meanwhile, loved them all. You can't go wrong with any of them. Bend Sinister isn't exactly horror, but definitely dark. His language is elegant yet full of traps, subtle jokes, double meanings etc - people can get phds to decipher them all but in my opinion that's not so important, you can simply find joy while reading. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I think I'd say Bend Sinister too. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.12.129.12 |
Stevie: I read about 6 Nabokov books meanwhile, loved them all. You can't go wrong with any of them That's so so so so so wrong. I'm desperately trying to stay out of this subject as I know I'm pretty much a lone voice on this board. Check my amazon reviews to see what I thought of the obvious choice. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.239.78 |
Just how does one cripple a snail? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.12.129.12 |
Before or after you superglue it to the tortoise? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Try harder, Marc. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
What do you think of the Kubrick film version of 'Lolita', Ramsey? It's probably his most undervalued film imo but I haven't read the book. Read your review, Marc, and it's interesting to note that all the Amazon reviews fall into two camps - timeless classic that humanises the unthinkable or pretentious drivel that apologises for same. Partly the reason I'd like to come at Nabokov from another angle and work up to that book (when I get a chance to fit him in). The short story I read was beautifully written and compellingly bizarre which is all I have to go on for now... | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I think the Kubrick (based to some extent on Nabokov's own script) is really pretty good - it captures much of the comedy of the novel. The Lyne version isn't up to it but has more of the melancholy and is more erotic. And here's another work that attracts extraordinary extremes of opinion on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Night-Hunter-Robert-Mitchum/dp/B000035P5R/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UT F8&s=dvd&qid=1274968604&sr=1-1 And so do I. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I love the Kubrick version and find it intensely poignant in the last third. I wasn't impressed at all with the Lyne version - far too glossy and, dare I say it, pretentious... | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.12.129.12 |
If it's pretentious it's just living up to the sourc... sorry, keeping out of this. | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.142.169.99 |
Weber You're not a lone voice. I tried Nabakov around a decade ago; very much doubt I'll try again. I found reading Bend Sinister a deathly dull experience, and as much of a disappointment as, say, E.M. Forster's attempt at dystopianism in Facial Justice. Mark S. | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.142.169.99 |
Or, for that matter, even his close associate Nabokov...  Mark S. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Lolita is probably my favourite book of all time. Stunning, stunning, stunning. I've read it and reread it and listened to Jeremy Irons reading it more than once on long road trips. After that I devoured everything else of Nabokov's, including The Eye, which was a kind of "first draft" of Lolita. Ramsey, I have to say I couldn't stomach the Kubrick film and experienced it as a mockery of my favourite book. But then, I WAS in my early 20s when I saw it, so I should probably revisit it with a more mellow mindset. I'll proudly be the lone voice here in defending the Lyne version, however. Sublime on every level for me. Faithful to both the prose and the characters. The camera actually quotes the prose in a couple of instances. "The icebox roared at me as I tore the ice from its heart." Marc: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but why do you want to try and spoil it for those of us who can look past the controversial subject matter and who don't find it pretentious? If you don't like it, don't look. Just sayin'.  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
'Marc: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but why do you want to try and spoil it for those of us who can look past the controversial subject matter and who don't find it pretentious? If you don't like it, don't look. Just sayin'.' Exactly. There are plenty of threads to keep everyone interested. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.142.82 |
In other words...if something doesn't interest you...skip it. | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.142.169.99 |
Facial Justice is, of course, by L.P. Hartley, not E.M. Forster. Mark S. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I don't mind admitting that the disparaging comments on Lolita and Night of the Hunter (and, for another example, some of Ishiguro's novels) on Amazon make me feel better about similar comments there on my stuff. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.78.35.185 |
there is a girl on youtube whose video blog entry was titled "Nabokov got pwned" or something like that. Pretty embarassing ! Another good one is (I read it in dutch) the one with the word Harlequins in the title. It's playful. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.78.35.185 |
I come back to Pnin: it being rather short, and light reading, with a delicious sweet-sour atmosphere and some typical humour, I think it's a very good Nabokovian holiday read, or interesting first Nabokov to try ! I still must read Pale Fire. It's in my bookcase, and I know it should be awesome, perhaps I take it on holiday. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Pale Fire is pure genius in its construction. I still can't believe the format hasn't been more widely used. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.10 |
How to cripple a snail - 38 granules of table salt - (not sea salt or rock salt - that would be cruel) inserted into the shell itself. Not enough to kill but it will completely incapacitate. Kate/Ally why is stating my opinion trying to spoil things for people? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Kate & Ramsey, I had a look at 'Pale Fire' in Waterstones last night and must admit I found the look of the text somewhat daunting... BUT, I remember thinking the same thing about 'A Maggot' by John Fowles, which turned out to be quite magnificent! I may be way off base here but that's the impression I get. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.1.97 |
I don't know why I've not ventured down the Nabokov road yet, but I for some reason I lack any desire to.... I mean, I've read a few short stories, like "The Vane Sisters," and rather liked them... actually, why blame Nabokov? I struggle all the time to maintain the "reading energy" levels... all the while secretly envying Stevie, like Gollum envied Frodo when that little bugger had the ring all to himself....  | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.142.169.99 |
I don't mind admitting that the disparaging comments on Lolita and Night of the Hunter (and, for another example, some of Ishiguro's novels) on Amazon make me feel better about similar comments there on my stuff. Hey, Ramsey. You're, quite rightly, amongst those few weird fiction authors whose work deserves serious attention. Beyond that, not much else matters. Mark S. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"'Marc: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but why do you want to try and spoil it for those of us who can look past the controversial subject matter and who don't find it pretentious? If you don't like it, don't look. Just sayin'.' Exactly. There are plenty of threads to keep everyone interested." I'd second that. Put it this way: such episodes I've seen of the various Doctor Who series haven't engaged my imagination, and for me they're overrated. But I certainly don't feel I should go on the Doctor Who thread that's running on this board and keep repeating what I think - in fact, I haven't been on it at all, have I? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
And thank you very much, Mark! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.233.125 |
Thank God I'm not the only one who doesn't get the whole Doctor Who craze.... (which I too have kept to myself) | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
""'Marc: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but why do you want to try and spoil it for those of us who can look past the controversial subject matter and who don't find it pretentious? If you don't like it, don't look. Just sayin'.' Exactly. There are plenty of threads to keep everyone interested." I'd second that. Put it this way: such episodes I've seen of the various Doctor Who series haven't engaged my imagination, and for me they're overrated. But I certainly don't feel I should go on the Doctor Who thread that's running on this board and keep repeating what I think " Zed has done, but no one thinks it's necessary to tell him to stay off the thread. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I'm sorry, I don't see that - having skimmed the Dr Who thread I find him making specific criticisms of different episodes, including some favourable comments. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
And I've made precisely one and a half comments about Lolita on this thread but apparently I shouldn't be allowed to do even that. If people started a thread about how brilliant "We need to talk about Kevin" is, I'm sure you would have chipped in with far worse and far more criticism than I have on this thread. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
It's fine not to like Nabokov -- or any other author -- but Nabokov certainly isn't "pretentious". What's he pretending to be? Clever? But he is clever. No pretence there. I discovered Nabokov's work when I was 19 and it changed my attitude to literature. The way he often conceals the 'keys' to his books in seemingly unimportant passages, the puzzle structure of even his most straightforward work, the aristocratic tone of his prose, the highly original but utterly authentic descriptions -- it all builds up into a heady mix that I find extremely intoxicating. Having said that, Lolita is certainly not my favourite Nabokov novel. I enjoyed Bend Sinister enormously (one of the great studies of apathy) and also Despair, Laughter in the Dark and King, Queen, Knave but my greatest praise is reserved for Glory. Seek it out: it's one of the most exquisite novels ever written. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
I would reply to that but apparently I'm not allowed. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Do reply if you like, Marc, but be specific, all right? Quote examples (as I would with the Shriver). | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
It's certainly acceptable to dislike authors and books, but it's important to get the dispragement right. The insult "pretentious" is probably the most wrongly-used term of abuse in the critical lexicon. I blogged about this awhile ago, for what it's worth: http://postmodernmariner.blogspot.com/2009/11/pretty-pretentious.html | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Great blog, Rhys. I recall being impressed by that when I first read it. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Marc, it's not the fact that you don't like Lolita or Nabokov. It's the way you feel compelled to proclaim your hatred anytime Lolita gets mentioned. I can think of at least two other threads where you've done this. We know you hate Nabokov. You've posted your comments before. And your Amazon review. Now you've pointed us to your Amazon review again. OK. Fine. We get it. But you're not going to convert us. Chris Morris said you seemed to enjoy hating Lolita, so why not start your own I Hate Nabokov thread and rant about him there? Then anyone who wants to join in can play over there with you and the ones who want to talk about the merits of book and author can do so without feeling like Matthew Hopkins is chucking crucifixes at us. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
I can't be bothered opening a new threrad for this so sorry kate. @ Rhys - IMO Lolita is the single dullest book ever written. I find it pretentious because it pretends to be great literature but great literature isn't dull. So therefore IMO pretentious is a perfect choice of insult, along with pompous and self-aggrandising. BTW I've updated my amazon review today. I know I'm not going to convert anyone on this board but I hardly think that one and a half snippy comments (before this more detailed post) is throwing crucifixes. I can't quote sections of the book to back up my opinions as I no longer have a copy to quote - but you can pretty much start with the opening paragraph and keep going for what felt like 300,000 pages. Rather than give it away and inflict it on anyone else, or burn it or tear it to give it a quick death, I simply threw it behind the bin in my back yard and watched it slowly rot and die a slow death. That was the most fun thing I found about that book. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.202 |
Pretentious can also be a way of avoiding skills you never realised you had, or dismiss from some odd kind of shame. Kids pretend because they're practising, adults because they are sometimes avoiding. I'm very fuzzy on my thoughts regarding pretension. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
I've not read any Nabokov, but have done the typical "I don't know much about art…" technique of seeing the film adaptation. In my case, it was the Kubrick version, and thought it was extraordinary… until the final third at which point it became cold, passionateness, and ultimately dull. This has been said about Kubrick at the best of times, to the point that some have wondered how he ever had a daughter because he couldn't possibly have understood the process. Even Eyes Wide Shut was far from as 'porn-like' as one would have expected, merely filled with skin and — again — a bit cold. If you've ever seen Kubrick's photographs (he began as a photographic artist) then the clarity of his eye isn't surprising, and the recording of the scene is of principle import to him, over 'the feel' of a moment. The end result of the film being 'tame' once things start getting all jiggy, is probably the fact the thing was made in 1962, only scant months after BUtterfield 8 was released; a picture Elizabeth Taylor reported called "the most pornographic film I've ever done", although the fact she hated making the film and only completed it due to being contractually obliged to, and so may have been attempting to do the film damage during promotional periods. She won an Oscar® for it, but claims it was the voters feeling sorry for her having suffered an illness at the start of the voting period and not due to the quality of her performance. Still, BUtterfield 8 being about a model/escort/good-time girl was seemingly risky enough that there must have been some influence on the approach taken with Lolita, surely? Being as how BUtterfield 8 was based on the actual case of a woman's body being found was the head-line grabber of the mid-30s, and the resultant book the film was adapted from was apparently also something people were fascinated by, would it be fair to say it would also be a tricksy matter making a film adapted from Nabokov's tale about a man sexually obsessed with an under-age girl? I can't find the quote now, but I recall Gloria Wandrous (Taylor's character) having a long-ish, passion-filled monologue about how she was disgusted and was attempting to destroy herself for not only having some sort-of non-specific physical experience with a man when she was 16 or so. What seemed to offend her even more than the having of that experience was that she actually enjoyed it! So here we have a character supposedly resenting her own sexual awakening about the joy the act can bring. This, from the woman who stated an hour earlier in the story "Mama, face it: I was the slut of all time." So... my point here is... Could it be that the frigid-quality of the final third of the film where 'no passion is seemingly felt' was due to the film-makers avoiding making anything too racy for fear of stirring the pot too much without even trying? And, for that matter, what does this say about where we are today, with the outrage about Roman Polanski abounding? Please understand that the actual crime of rape is not a part of this point, but the principle aspect of people's declamation of Polanski's evil seems to be regarding the age of the woman involved. She is on record as saying that she has forgiven Polanski, and did so years ago. Given the fact that the simple writing of a story about an issue which is able to spark this amount of discussion long after its publishing — no matter how dull that prose might be in some eyes, and I've no idea what it's like in a practical sense — it must have some sort of place in literature, surely? Weber can disagree, and that's fine. I really don't know, and I'm willing to listen for the sake of simply hearing his witty replies. Someone hating Terry Pratchett's work won't mess with my enjoying the Discworld series. …and I love watching Doctor Who each week, but haven't even read the thread about it because… I can't be arsed, really. [shrugs] |