You're welcome. Thank you for subscribing.

Thanks so much

Thank so much you for subscribing

It would take you a lifetime to figure how it relates and expands on Pnin.

Thank you for subscribing.

Pedo

Agreed

Well put

Thank you so much for subscribing

Thank you so much.

Thank you for subscribing

Thank you for subscribing

My pleasure. Thank you for subscribing.

very Nietzschean

Thank you for subscribing

Большое спасибо. С наступающим Новым годом.

Thank you for subscribing

Many thanks for subscribing.

Amis’s introduction to the Everyman edition of Lolita is definitive. I think he reprinted it in The War Against Cliche.

Thank you for subscribing

My pleasure. Happy you subscribed.

Thank you for subscribing

@@shrayerm You welcome and Greetings from Spain

English was more native to him than Russian. He spoke Russian tongue-tied and with an accent since childhood. His aristocratic family spoke English and French, and he only began learning Russian as a teenager. He often formed Russian words by adding Russian suffixes to English roots. In this video you can hear that, speaking Russian, he cannot pronounce the Russian sound “r” correctly. And his own translation of “Lolita” into Russian is funny and terrible. He brought out the obsolete Russian language from emigration. For example, he translated “jeans” as “blue cowboy pants,” although in Russia “jeans” are called jeans.

You are fundamentally wrong. Nabokov spoke Russian very well, and he said that he had no native language, but thought more often in Russian. Now to " the jeans", the first jeans appeared in the USSR at the end of the 50s, in the mid-60s they became popular. He translated the book in 1967, he translated this phrase very accurately, and the key word here for the soviet reader is “cowboy”. Я по-манере письма вижу, что вы русскоязычная, поэтому продолжу на этом языке, дабы вам было более понятно. Вы описываете его со "своей колокольни", так получилось, что моя жизнь с 6 лет сплошные переезды, в итоге 3 языка, на которых я спокойно из'ясняюсь, но не стоит путать разговорную речь и лит. письменную - это раз. Во-вторых, ну не перевод это в вашем обыденном понимании, Не Перевод, человек написавший худ. произ. его не переводит, а пишет как бы заново, на другом доступном ему языке с оглядкой на оригинал.

Thank you for subscribing.

Thank you for subscribing

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i8ikqbqf28i8hHk.html

Thank you for subscribing

Thank you for subscribing

Thank you for subscribing

SO glad you enjoyed, and thank you for subscribing.

This, of course, is an exaggeration, or rather mythology, the first was Russian, then English, then French😊

Not quite so, in his aristocratic family they spoke English and French, but he knew Russian poorly and began to study only as a teenager, spoke with an accent, confusing Russian and English words.

You sound like Jordan Peterson (it’s up to you to take it as a compliment or not 😄). Freud was not Medieval, he was a cave man. With an umbrella. The question is not whether he and Jung were right (oh, the terrible reality that we live in a world which reveres quantum physics as much as psychoanalysis as divinely true, hence normative! 😄), but what they have been chosen to be ‘right’ for, over other (I should say more constructive) paradigms.

@@claudiamanta1943 Magical thinking is not a more constructive paradigm, it's a regression to semi- infancy. Rhetoric like "constructive" begs the question as well, as what is being constructed is the laughable politics of ego fellation parading as science. Compliment? River Jordan? Ha. I have original theories, several, Monseigneur Peterson has not even one, not one I've heard but cannot listen to common sense values posing as truth: truth has no moral, no innate valuations. Peety, like most pop intellectuals neither understands nor can coherently explain Freud's theory. Neither can Richard Dawkins, but that's the consequence of pretending all biological causation happens at the micro level: fallacy deluxe, and a phallic narcissist territories- dispute. Siggy was not a caveman. My God. He and Sophocles discovered the greatest truth about human nature and 99% of humanity is not adult enough to know so. I suggest you read Freud from the late 1930s, and his heirs Otto Fenichel, Jeanne Lampl De Groot. Read the texts and drop the dogma. Nearly all that is said about Freud is dead wrong. Jung is not even a scientist or proper philosopher after 1914, and by his theory of THE SHADOW he had lapsed into a dissociative psychosis defined by Aggression Mania and Megalomania, his theory of The Shadow ( with apologies to Orson Welles) is literally the personification of his own mental illness, and its conversion into a "theory" which as it lacks even falsifiability, qualifies Jung as a foremost kook-mystic of the era, as was W. Reich after 1936 with the zany Orgone, the erotic cosmic energy (Fourrier and Empedocles beat him to that beat off). Too bad. Reich's was a vast and great mind and his diagnosis of Character Armor from retentive neurosis was a great discovery still not fully understood in this age of the philistine and fame-fuckery-fakery. But the early Reich of Character Analysis far surpassed in sheer genius anything by Jung. Reich from 1925-33 was one of the greatest discovers of human nature to live. Just ask Darwin. But I did take the time to reply to you given your obvious and deep intellect. But I really shouldn't blow it social media which is not very social and vile as media. Ciao, In Venerea Veritas. At least I made art of of my ideas as shown on my KZfaq channel but I need to go back to writing prose and real books

@@claudiamanta1943 More simply: the difference between me and Jordan Peterson is between Diogenes and Ann Landers

Freud more like Fraud

@@dajoker8998 Oh boy, pun as proof. Yeah, humans are full of rational consciousness, free will and self made egos, especially for cheap as hominem from illiterates who cannot even correctly recite Freud's theories, or Darwin's for that matter. Go back to Gloria Steinem, or, The Bible and Fox news. Those are The American Choice.

In a sense, yes. I believe 'The Texture of Time' is the name of the lecture Van Veen gives in the fourth chapter of Ada or Ardor.

@@jaypaulharrison9029 thanks, haven't read that one in years...I'll have to give it another read

Ada or ardour?

He 'talked'; 'talks' about ...

@@stuartwray6175 do you really spend your time correcting typos on youtube comments? smh

Genius

"Петербург" Андрея Белого Petersburg by Andrey Belyi, a great russian writer

@@Valgant thank you… will see if I can’t find him in translation

Make sure you get the 1980s translation published by Penguin. It's first-rate. There was an earlier US version translated by two academics in the 70s which was rubbish, as well as leaving out great chunks of the novel. The Penguin version comes with indispensable notes at the back which explain a lot of the wordplay lost in translation. Hope you enjoy it - it really is a great novel.

@@nickwyatt9498 thanks… was pretty hard to find and unsure which edition I got but looked like 80’s cover art and is penguin so will find out soon when it arrives

Thank you for subscribing

Thank you for subscribing

A sign of aristocratic upbringing

Thank you for subscribing

One of the the most significant writers of 20th century

No, no.

No, he was mocking Freud in "Lolita"

He did not steal it. He got inspired by it.

You know his father was a member of the Russian government before the October revolution after which the Nabokov family had to flee. In emigration his father was killed when on some political parties meeting in Germany if I can remember properly. Shot blank point by some эссер party member right into the heart. At a very close distance.

Pompous and unpleasant? My dear fellow, don't be so hard on yourself!

We read some of his work when I was undergrad at Cornell U. Pnin. I guess he was still alive at the time.

Thank you for subscribing.

I think it has to do with Freud's psychosexual theory and how this theory is to describe the unconcious part of the mind. A science of the unconscious, if you will. I think Nabokov is right, that is medieval, in the sense that it's backward.

@@yohanessaputra9274 Yes, I understand that it was related to his theories and had suspected that it was he thought they were, as you say, backward, but I hoped there would be more to it than that.

@@CriticalDispatches I also did not get that Medieval reference…Can’t see how possibly Freud could be medieval. In Middle Ages they were extremely pious while the Freudian theory was revolutionary in the sense that he connected psychological disturbances with sexuality.

In the meaning of "mystical", I believe. He considered Freud a charlatan, akin to a fortune teller, having nothing in common with science - hence the word.

Considered Freud as obsessed with sexual transgression as the Inquisition