Strong opinions is the original title of this book that I have just finished, extremized by the translator as Intransigence. It collects interviews with Vladimir Nabokov, who demanded them in written form to be able to prepare his answers accurately: nothing (form and content) was left to chance.

I don't know if Nabokov can be defined as intransigent. Certainly, he had very clear ideas about literature and writing, about the relationship between the author, the narrated facts, and the characters, about his reading tastes, which he expressed with trenchant judgments on who, among his predecessors, was great, simply good, or mediocre, about the difference between genius and talent.

I would have liked to read it in 1994, in the first Adelphi edition. While maintaining my personal tastes, which sometimes coincide and sometimes do not with his, I would certainly have emerged from those pages with greater clarity of judgment in my subsequent readings.

In short, Intransigence is a great book that, towards the end, offers us a physiology of literary inspiration, with initial symptoms and subsequent developments, which is very enjoyable.

And then, how can we not forgive his extreme opinions when they are expressed with so much irony? For example, I quote a passage about the hated Sigmund Freud: "If the naïve and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental illnesses can be cured with a daily application of old Greek myths to the intimate parts, let them do so." Or another brief passage extrapolated from advice given to an aspiring literary critic: "Put the how at all costs, above the what, but make sure it is not confused with the why."

And then he maintains, and I agree with him, that Anna Karenina is the greatest novel of the 19th century. Karenin, without the final typographical a, is not a ballerina (VN's words).

It’s truly arduous to concur with Nabokov. How extremely obnoxious! To make such remarks about Dostoyevsky or Camus…

I can only side with him on the matter of the translation of poetry. I simply loathe any translation that isn't a faithful and literal one. How dare someone alter what is written by the artist, modifying its meaning even, merely for the sake of euphony? Since when does aesthetics prevail over truth? Isn't it deceit? How can one tolerate it, I ask.

And who would read Mr. Arndt’s translation of Pushkin after he himself writes in his preface:

“The present new translation … is not aimed primarily at the academic and literary expert, but at a public of English-speaking students and others interested in a central work of world literature in a compact and readable form.”

I just wonder who would read such a work after reading such a dubious declaration. As Nabokov puts it incisively enough, it's equivalent to saying “I know this is an inferior product but it is gaily colored and nicely packed, and is anyway, just for students and such people.”

I can also concur that the term genius is too liberally bestowed. As of now, I can only consider Shakespeare and Tolstoy as true deserving candidates.

With regard to this particular book, Strong Opinions, I assert that it is only for those who actually have an interest in Nabokov. It’s a collection of interviews and letters of him regarding such subjects as his novels or his passion for butterflies. I liked it because he corresponded precisely with the idea I had of him: bright and as witty as they come. When it comes to the writing, I don't think that anyone who has read Nabokov will be in any way astonished to find it just as delightful.

No really, Dear N., tell us what you really think!

This statement holds great value for those of us who are foolish enough to persistently attempt to know more about the author. Does he show any leniency and permit us even a glimpse? Ever?

The answer is a resounding no.

However, it is rather amusing to observe him deliberately not allowing us access. He is, and will always remain, the Master. His refusal to disclose more about himself adds an air of mystery and allure to his work. It makes us wonder what lies beneath the surface and keeps us coming back for more. We can only imagine what secrets he is hiding and how they might enhance our understanding and appreciation of his creations.

Perhaps this is his way of maintaining control and ensuring that his work speaks for itself. Or maybe he simply enjoys the game of keeping us guessing. Whatever the reason, we can't help but be intrigued by his enigmatic nature.

Nabokov is truly an enigma, often regarded as an Old Testament God with the romanticism of the New Testament. His works are a tapestry of complexity and beauty that leave readers in awe. But how does one go about reviewing a collection of interviews curated by himself? It's a daunting task, to say the least. Every time I accidentally catch sight of the book's spine on my shelf, a shiver runs down my spine and I find myself on the verge of tears. The thought of delving into his mind through these interviews is both thrilling and overwhelming. It's as if I'm about to embark on a journey into the unknown, a journey that will undoubtedly change my perception of literature and art. I can only hope that I'm up to the challenge and that I can do justice to this remarkable collection.

It had been an extremely long time since I last delved into a Vladimir Nabokov book. And Strong Opinions was one of the few remaining on my bookshelf that I’d never had the pleasure of reading. So, it was high time to crack it open and explore its contents.

Nabokov, in this collection of interviews, essays, and letters to the editor,展现出了他一贯的独特风格。他既有着令人捧腹的自命不凡，又毫不掩饰地自我调侃，在对待采访时就像他笔下的普宁一样。他从不因批评其他作家而削弱自己的才智和文学造诣，并且在采访方式上坚持己见。

I absolutely loved it. It brought back to mind all the things I adore about Nabokov. Of course, his beautiful writing is a major draw, but also his complex personality that vacillates between pretentiousness and insecurity depending on the topic at hand. He often gets a bad reputation, as if being the author of Lolita is the only thing people know about him and judge him by. However, reading these interviews and essays provides a much better context for understanding him. I had read about most of these subjects before, being a bit of a Nabokovian fangirl myself, but it was refreshing to read them all again from his unique perspective, even if they may have been edited or scripted in advance.

Nevertheless, I did feel that Strong Opinions wasn’t his finest collection of thoughts. The topics and writing styles seemed to jump around haphazardly, ranging from critiques of his own books to correspondence with famous people in his life (such as Maurice Girodias and Edmund Wilson), and even essays on lepidoptera and his travels to find them. Nabokov was in his 70s when he compiled this collection of his own Nabokovian minutiae, and although most of the essays were written well before then, I can understand the challenge of curating and combining a lifetime of work into a memorable volume. I just felt it wasn’t his best work. But it definitely reignited my interest in Nabokov, and I now need to revisit some of my old favorites and finally get around to reading the few remaining Nabokov novels that I haven’t read. Not to mention his short stories and poems, both of which I have barely scratched the surface of!

Please provide the article that needs to be rewritten and expanded so that I can help you.

Geweldig. Een meester aan het woord.

This simple yet powerful statement holds a world of meaning. It implies that someone truly remarkable is about to speak.

The word "geweldig" means "great" or "amazing" in Dutch, setting a high expectation for what is to come.

When a master takes the floor, we know that we are in for a treat.

Masters are those who have achieved a high level of expertise in their field.

They have spent years honing their skills and knowledge, and their words carry weight and authority.

Whether it's a master artist, a master scientist, or a master storyteller, we listen intently to their every word, eager to learn from their wisdom and experience.

So, when we hear those two words, "geweldig" and "een meester aan het woord," we know that something special is about to happen.

We prepare ourselves to be inspired, enlightened, and perhaps even transformed by the words of the master.

It's a moment to cherish and remember, a moment when we are in the presence of greatness.

I enjoy Vladimir Nabokov.

Not as much as he enjoys himself, but I enjoy him.

---Gore Vidal.

For a man who was regarded as a literary genius, Nabokov had one significant flaw, if you choose to call it that.

He could not speak eloquently or often not at all in a tête-à-tête.

He was especially timid around interviewers.

Therefore, this collection consists of written questions submitted to him by the press, to which he provided written answers.

(This led PLAYBOY Interview Editor Murray Fisher to once say, "Nabokov was the best unpaid interview editor we ever had.")

Vladimir indeed enjoys expressing himself, of course by pen, on politics, religion, and literature.

Regarding politics: "So long as the basic civil liberties are maintained and the head of state's photograph is published no larger than the size of a stamp, I don't care what economic or political form a regime takes."

On the existence of God: "I know more than I can express."

Regarding selected literary figures: "Dostoevsky is a cheap sentimentalist... Conrad and Hemingway are writers of boys' adventure stories."

All in all, this collection is the best defense I know of elitism.

He is a genius.

He is a titan of language.

He has a career path that I can only dream about.

In this case, he is Vladimir Nabokov, one of my favorite writers.

I adored this collection of interviews and essays. It not only showcases an excellent command of language but also admirable wit.

(Although Dostoyevsky was a genius. Nabokov is incorrect about this.)

The butterfly essays at the end, however, hold very little interest for most and are rather lackluster as pieces of prose.

And Alfred Appel Jr.'s interview is sycophantic to the point of irritation.

But overall, it is fantastic.

Despite the few drawbacks, the collection as a whole offers a fascinating glimpse into the mind of Nabokov.

His insights and perspectives are truly captivating.

The way he plays with words and constructs sentences is a joy to read.

Even though some of the essays may not be to everyone's taste, there is still much to be gained from reading this collection.

It is a must-read for any fan of Nabokov or anyone interested in the art of writing.

Nabokov as Mandarin is a rather unappealing figure, quite different from what he presents in his fictions. He dishes out stentorian judgments from on high, which makes it the absolute worst place for a newcomer to start. For fans, there is no shortage of intentionally provocative opinions that should be taken with a barrel of salt. He savages such "mediocrities" as Dostoevsky and Thomas Mann, among others. However, he also offers the odd dazzling insight into his own work. He brilliantly rips asunder decades worth of received wisdom. Overall, it is a worthwhile read, but one should proceed with caution.

I simply can't award this book four stars. I can't even consider it a guilty pleasure because I find Nabokov in this particular work to be an utterly appalling individual. If there ever was a personification of the insufferably pompous writer, it is VN. It's not about being "fierce" or "unfiltered" as some might claim. He's not an "irascible lion" either. This book is truly embarrassing and unbelievably ridiculous, right from the very first declaration in his introductory self-portrait. Some may find him charming, impressive, or brave. Of course, VN could possess those qualities, but they are too rarely present here. Instead, he comes across as quarrelsome, envious, and almost cartoonish. I'm certain that VN himself would rise to his feet, roaring in indignation. It's a tragic affliction for such a talented writer, with a wealth of experience and imagination, to become so self-pleased. I don't witness his "brutal wit" on display in this book. Instead, I see an obese rooster throwing a tantrum. At first, you might want to believe that VN's ego is just a varnish on his calculating, speculative mind, but upon revisiting it now, I'm only struck by how suffocated he seems by himself. There is a weakness in VN's thinking throughout this series of interviews, an insistence on ranking and a desperate self-assertion that, on a second read-through, quickly becomes exhausting. I admit that initially, I read it with entertainment and an eagerness for more.

I do have a great deal of admiration for "Lolita" and "Pale Fire," a little for "Bend Sinister," and "Pnin" was rather sweet. Additionally, several of his short stories are truly fascinating. However, I would rather have to walk through a desert with a bag around my neck, locked by a huge unbreakable clasp, having to decide whether to pour out a big pond for myself or carry my supply to look for water, than ever have to read this book again.

Update: There's a sequel that came out a few years ago, titled "Think, Write, Speak." I borrowed it from the library but never got around to reading it before returning it.

Strong Opinions indeed. Nabokov has a plethora of thoughts to share about his art, art in general, his creative process, his perspectives on other writers, and his literary feuds. One can't help but sense that he is a highly intelligent and openly eccentric man with a multitude of talents.

What makes this book particularly outstanding, in my view, is his refusal to pander to those less educated than him and to what Harold Bloom refers to as the'school of resentment', that is, those whose only passion is to take offense on behalf of the world.

There is no dearth of wit and insight. Phrases and sentences such as these are scattered throughout the book:

“There is only one school, that of talent.”

\\"Satire is a lesson, parody is a game.\\"

“Genius still means to me, in my Russian fastidiousness and pride of phrase, a unique, dazzling gift, the genius of James Joyce, not the talent of Henry James.”

“Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of art. The social or economic structure of the ideal state is of little concern to me.”

“I have never belonged to any political party but have always loathed and despised dictatorships and police states, as well as any sort of oppression. This goes for regimentation of thought, governmental censorship, racial or religious persecution, and all the rest of it. Whether or not my simple credo affects my writing does not interest me.”

“We must also remember—and this is very important—that the only people who flourish under all types of government are the Philistines.”

“But what do you think of Sartre’s remark? Nothing. I’m immune to any kind of opinion and I just don’t know what an “anti-novel” is specifically. Every original novel is “anti-” because it does not resemble the genre or kind of its predecessor.”

The mixture of unreality and illusion may have led some people to consider you mystifying and writing full of puzzles. What is your answer to people who say you are just plain obscure? “To stick to the crossword puzzle in their Sunday paper.”

\\"I pride myself on being a person with no public appeal. I have never been drunk in my life. I never use schoolboy words of four letters. I have never worked in an office or in a coal mine. I have never belonged to any club or group. No creed or school has had any influence on me whatsoever. Nothing bores me more than political novels and the literature of social intent.”