cracraft@isi-vaxa.ARPA (09/14/85)
From: Stuart Cracraft <CRACRAFT@ISI-VAXA.ARPA> Regarding DHALGREN by Delaney... I think the book is total garbage. I stopped less than half-way because I couldn't stomach 1) the boredom 2) the verbosity with no real purpose 3) the self-indulging nature of the author. Delaney has never been one of my favorite authors in any genre, because I think his 'experimental' styles and 'clever techniques' are almost useless in terms of telling a good story and telling it well. For many of the same reasons I didn't like Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE OR ULLYSES (sp?). These types of 'experiments' just don't appeal to me. Folks, if you want a really BRILLIANT novel that extends the concept of what it means to *BE* a novel, please read Vladimir Nabokov's LOLITA. Forget everything you've heard about it from 'old wives' concerned about their children and all that usual clap-trap. Go into it with an open mind, get past the first difficult 20-30 pages, and you will have found the gem of all novels. Since I read the book 5 years ago, nothing, REPEAT NOTHING, I have read has come close. In fact, Nabokov and his wily ways may have done permanent damage to my ability to enjoy novels. Sadly, none of Nabokov's other novels even comes close to this one work, so it really stands alone. Stuart -------
judith@proper.UUCP (Judith Abrahms) (09/17/85)
In article <3659@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Stuart Cracraft writes: >Since I read [_Lolita_] 5 years ago, nothing, REPEAT NOTHING, I have >read has come close. In fact, Nabokov and his wily ways may have >done permanent damage to my ability to enjoy novels. Sadly, none >of Nabokov's other novels even comes close to this one work, >so it really stands alone. Have you given _Ada_ a try? I liked it about as much as I did _Lolita_, which is very much indeed. Also, _Bend_Sinister_, which for some reason is unknown to even a lot of Nabokov addicts, dazzles in that same reflective/refractive way characteristic of _Lolita_. A few of the short stories do too. > Stuart Judith Abrahms {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/23/85)
In article <3659@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> cracraft@isi-vaxa.ARPA writes: >Folks, if you want a really BRILLIANT novel that extends the >concept of what it means to *BE* a novel, please read >Vladimir Nabokov's LOLITA. Forget everything you've heard >about it from 'old wives' concerned about their children and >all that usual clap-trap. Go into it with an open mind, get >past the first difficult 20-30 pages, and you will have found >the gem of all novels. Exactly (although 'gem of all novels' may be overstating it). I recommend highly the Appell (sp?) annotated version, which has copious notes discussing the text and a lot of information about Nabokov's writing of the novel. I've read this book 4 times and continue to find new delights in it. Oh, yes: Lolita has NOTHING to do with pornography. If you want to know what it IS about, get the Appell edition and read it. >Since I read the book 5 years ago, nothing, REPEAT NOTHING, I have >read has come close. In fact, Nabokov and his wily ways may have >done permanent damage to my ability to enjoy novels. Sadly, none >of Nabokov's other novels even comes close to this one work, >so it really stands alone. I'm afraid I disagree on Nabokov's other novels; I've read several of his other books 2 or 3 times and have found them NEARLY as rewarding as Lolita. Lolita is, however, a towering masterpiece of post-WW2 literature beside which most other novels written since 1950 (including Nabokov's) pale in comparison. I highly recommend new readers start with Lolita, then try Laughter In The Dark or maybe Despair or Pnin, then Ada and Pale Fire (perhaps his strangest book). They all have something interesting and valuable to offer the careful reader. Oh, yes, in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion. But before you start flaming us for even SUGGESTING a non-SF book to readers of this group, go check out the last few lyrical paragraphs in Lolita. It soars, it soars. Roughly from memory: I am talking about aurochs and angels, the immortality of pigment, the only immortality we shall ever know, my Lolita. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (09/27/85)
> > Oh, yes, in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion. But before you > start flaming us for even SUGGESTING a non-SF book to readers of this > group, go check out the last few lyrical paragraphs in Lolita. It soars, > it soars. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly Just to make you feel better, *I* understood the implied "in my opinion." My first reaction to the bit about expecting to be flamed for suggesting a non-SF book was that you were becoming paranoid. But, on reflection, perhaps not. Oh, by the way, I have read LOLITA. The writing is quite good. I seem to be as taken with it as you two, but I will back your recommendation. -- SKZB
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (09/27/85)
> > I seem to be as taken with it as you two, but I > ^ please insert the word "not" here. -- SKZB