Questo bellissimo saggio del professore Nabokov mi ha accompagnato per tutto un anno. È stato d'ispirazione e mi ha spinta a leggere o rileggere tutti i romanzi in esso contenuti,ed è stata un'occasione di crescita come lettrice. Capire le strutture dei grandi classici, approfondire i personaggi,rivedere le vite degli autori e le loro invenzioni è stata un esperienza molto bella e gratificante. Consigliato a tutti gli amanti dei classici e della letteratura.

First of all, I felt like it was Christmas while reading these lectures; they are gifts. I feel jealous of the students who were able to take his course. However, I found his "strong," unsubstantiated opinions frustrating, and I confess that I fit more closely with his definition of a "bad" reader than with his definition of a "good" reader. I definitely appreciate style (Nabokov is one of my favorite authors because of style!), but I am also drawn to literature that, as an old friend once put it, "makes me feel some feelings."



Another aspect of his lectures I disliked was their heavy plot focus, but I loved his drawings of city blocks and residences!



I will briefly provide my experience of each of the lectures:



Mansfield Park: I'm glad I read this lecture because it reminded me of why I dislike Jane Austen novels. Apparently, Nabokov said something about Jane Austen like, "I cannot find a single thing in Pride and Prejudice to enjoy," but was convinced by a friend to read Mansfield Park, which he thought more worthy. Based on the passages he quoted in this lecture, I disagree.



Bleak House: This book had never interested me, but I am reconsidering my decision based on Nabokov's lecture. We'll see.



Madame Bovary: It was fun to reread the plot and see some elements of Flaubert's style differently.



The Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde: Same feelings I have about Madame Bovary lecture



The Walk by Swann's Place: Reinforced my wanting to read Proust



The Metamorphosis: This was my favorite lecture. I missed a lot when I read this several years ago.


Ulysses: This lecture was instrumental in helping me get the most out of Ulysses. I read the footnotes in my copy first and during each chapter of Ulysses; then, I read the corresponding section of this lecture. I felt like Ulysses was a difficult class I had to study hard for, and I used this lecture to help with that.

*letto fino a ”Casa desolata” di Dickens; 20/06/2021

Ho appena abbandonato ”Mansfield Park” a circa due terzi e ne ho approfittato per leggere subito la prima lezione sul romanzo di Austen. Pensavo che mi avrebbe fatto cambiare idea sulla lettura, invece sono solo contenta di essermi risparmiata circa 170 pagine: visto che Nabokov racconta abbastanza bene e in dettaglio la trama e che i personaggi ho avuto modo di conoscerli, tanto di guadagnato.

Probabilmente non leggerò il romanzo di Dickens prima del saggio, visto che conta circa 900 pagine e non credo di essere abbastanza motivata.

Mi piacerebbe tuttavia riprendere ”La metamorfosi” e ”Madame Bovary” in traduzioni ed edizioni migliori prima di leggere le rispettive lezioni.
Per quanto riguarda invece Joyce e Proust, beh. Ci vorranno anni, già lo so.

I didn't expect to get so easily attached to these pages. Something I would recommend to anyone who sees the stories in the books (especially the classics) with a deeper point of view. Being a good reader is as complexed as being a good writer.
Definitely one of my favorite readings this year.

Nabokov was a snob and something of a genius, with an uncompromising vision of what constitutes Great Literature. His hilariously strong opinions on other famous authors frequently resurface online. Few things delight us digital denizens more than seeing Dostoevsky dismissed as “a cheap sensationalist” and Camus as “a nonentity” (perhaps because it lessens our guilt about not having read these authors, or because it gives us ammunition against friends who have).

At first glance, his opinions seem elitist and intentionally provocative. However, upon deeper examination, it becomes clear that Nabokov’s views were highly consistent and stemmed from his profound love for literature as a pure art form.

An aristocrat in both taste and heritage, Nabokov grew up in a wealthy Saint Petersburg family, enjoying the full advantages of an elite education and becoming fluent in Russian, French, and English. His childhood home was likely a haven of intellectual richness, filled with books, private tutors, stimulating discussions, art, and leisure. However, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 turned these privileges into liabilities. And at just 17 years old, Nabokov was forced to begin a life of exile that would define the rest of his years.

Fast forward 30 years to Cornell in the United States. In his Lectures on Literature there, Nabokov analysed six classics in painstaking detail, meanwhile sharing his idiosyncratic views on great literature and urging his students to become “good” readers. According to Nabokov, a good reader must possess memory, imagination, and a dictionary—fair enough—and seek an elusive “artistic” satisfaction that transcends mere personal identification with the story or the pursuit of moral or other lessons.

In my review of the dreadful The Empusium, I proposed judging a book based on its psychological depth, philosophical ideas, entertainment value, and language. To Nabokov, such criteria are the hallmarks of a “mediocre” reader. For him, reality, human behaviour, and psychology are merely raw materials—ingredients that a great author uses for a new, self-contained, transcendent world. Philosophy, morals, and social commentary may emerge from such a work, but for Nabokov, they should never serve as its foundation; otherwise, the result risks becoming a political pamphlet rather than art. In his view, good novels are, at their core, great fairy tales.

We can, in this way, better understand his opinions. Dostoevsky’s primary appeal lies in his dark, piercing psychological portraits, while Camus uses literature as a medium to explore philosophical ideas. Personally, I find this equally compelling. But not Nabokov.

His literary sensibilities align with modernism, a movement that sought to break away from the 18th- and 19th-century traditions of realism, romanticism, and social commentary. Ironically, many modern readers still prefer these earlier traditions, explaining the enduring appeal of authors like Dostoevsky and Camus. (To clarify, Nabokov did not dislike all classic authors. His Lectures on Literature focus exclusively on 19th-century novels, showcasing his appreciation for certain works of that era.)

This might explain why Nabokov’s opinions might seem contrarian or elitist today. He was deeply committed to a vision of literature as an independent art form, challenging the expectations and tastes of readers who often value the very conventions he sought to transcend.

To be honest, I’m not always sure what Nabokov is talking about, and I can’t, for the life of me, get through Ulysses (yet)—a book he considers the greatest novel of the 20th century. That said, his Lectures on Literature have already deepened my appreciation for Dickens’ Bleak House, Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, and now Austen’s Mansfield Park. I’ll keep using his Lectures as a guide for the remaining three books, hoping that, someday, I might become a “good” reader by his standards. In the meantime, I’ll keep indulging in such vulgar, guilty pleasures like Dostoevsky and Camus (sarcasm).

Kitapların ve yazarların bu kadar iyi analiz edilmesine rağmen (4 yıldız bu bakımdan aldı) eser bana göre değildi ki ; şu açıdan okuduğum , sevdiğim bir eserlerin bu kadar cımbızla alınması yani mikroskop altında tutulması belki bir çoğumuzun beğenisini kazanması doğal ,okurların , yazarları olsun konuyu olsun daha açık bir şekilde görmesini sağlayabilmesini sağlıyor mutlaka amma ne yazık ki ben bunu istemiyorum kendi açımdan. Okurken iç dünyamda yarattığım olaylar kişiler daha gerçek hale getirmiş Nabokov yani benim hayal dünyamdan uzaklaşmışlar.
Ben okurken ; örnek olarak '' Madam Bovary'' yi yazayım ; Flaubert' den bana gelen bir anlatı artık bana ait. Flaubert bu anlatıyı yazarken şekillendirdikleri bende biraz daha değişiyor mutlaka. Bu da oldukça doğal yani. Aynı dönemin aynı kültürün insanları olmadığımıza göre romanın benim dünyamda ki durumu bana göre iyi hoş amma Nabokov onu daha bilimsel daha geniş ve tekniksel açıdan ele almış ,mutlaka hayranlık verici bir durum olmasına rağmen benimle yazarın arasına girmesi benim hiç benimseyeceğim bir şey değil. Sevdiğim beğendiğim bir yazar Nabokov birçoğumuz gibi ''Lolita'' sını bende okudum oldukça da beğendim . Algı anlayışımız her zaman herkes de farklıdır bence benzer yanları olsa dahi. Bunları yazarken sanki bir şeyleri eksik anlatmış gibi hissettim!

This took me several years to read, and I was very pleased with the way my approach to the lectures worked out. Having listened to very learned lectures on Literature as an undergraduate-- but laboring under the frequent interwoven influences of marijuana daze and 'haven't-quite-read-the-book-in-question' handicaps ...

I took Mr. Nabokov's course, in the nineties. Before starting his chapter on each book, I read that book, without the company, this time, of bong, coed, or Tangerine Dream Lp. Each of the classics here was worth the read, the re-read, or the first-time read, and the reward was having VN to sum it up.
Youth, as we all know, is wasted on the young, and who can read books when there are other distractions that are catnip to the undergraduate... ?

Take the challenge, take the course, read the books, go back to square one. Like old schooldays, but with actual learning taking place.
Then, take a break, and twist a fat one.

I read the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde chapter shortly after finishing Stevenson’s novel with the long-term intention of using this book as a year-long reading companion as I read each work from this book.

I am a huge fan of Nabokov but found this one chapter disappointing. 80% of it was quotes from the novel in question, another 15-18% plot summary, all of which was redundant for me as I had just finished reading the work in question.

What I had been hoping for was some nuggets of deep literary criticism that gave me insights into both Nabokov’s and Stevenson’s work. There was this, which I have to agree with:

“But does not the safety, this easy way [lack of description] does it not denote a certain weakness in the artist? I think it does. First of all, this Victorian reticence prompts the modern reader to grope for conclusions that perhaps Stevenson never intended to be groped for.”

But other than that, this was Cliff Notes for an English 101 class. This is not literary criticism. Won’t be reading the rest of it.

wow wow wow

If you love classic literature, there is much to be enjoyed in Nabokov's lectures. This volume covers seven novels - Mansfield Park, Bleak House, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Walk by Swann's Place (aka "Swann's Way"), The Metamorphosis (Kafka), and Ulysses. In each case, Nabokov's erudition and unapologetic perspectives offer the reader a way to dig deeper into these classics. Time permitting, I'm looking forward to rereading these novels along with Nabokov's lectures nearby.

In a short essay at the beginning of the book, Nabovkov writes:

There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three – storyteller, teacher, enchanter – but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.


I believe he's on to something here. What is it that the greatest writers do that capture our imaginations? Of course! They enchant us, they seduce us, they carry us away into those magical, enchanted lands and lives and when we finally reach the last page, the enchantment lingers on and we contentedly sigh, "What a great book..."

Highly recommended for readers and writers alike!

for a split second, this made me nostalgic for college. then i recovered my senses.

Nabokov’s Lectures on Literature would have been great to have had as a study aid back in my student days and later on in my teaching days.

Not being of the Ivy League, I can only imagine what it would have been like to attend a class taught by a professor like Professor Nabokov.

He states, “In this course I have tried to reveal the mechanism of those wonderful toys—literary masterpieces.”