Just read his short stories collection and Tyrants Destroyed is such cope

>>24985110
Just say you want to fucking little kids and save yourself some time.

File: 1710372111920080.jpg (84 KB, 1023x682)

84 KB JPG

Depends on the difficulty and how well you can understand complex literary writing. If you're already a little bit familiar with his stuff, just start with Pnin, as it's a great book and literary response as to why Don Quixote is a silly crude old book. It's also his easiest book to read, by far. Easier to understand than even Lolita.
If you want something more difficult, start with Pale Fire. Pale Fire is a more complex novel, in terms of its structure, so there are many things to decode in order to get into the inner psychologies and jokes. It is more of metafiction, as well as an precursor to hypertext fiction (really a sort of poioumenon), so the writing has layers of sophisticated wordplay and intertextual riddles. Easily his magnum opus, as much as society would like to disagree.

>>24985744
Do you think his early English or Russian novels aren't worth reading?
I've already read Lolita but I will re-read it when the time comes

he was a pedo wasn't he?

>>24985110
Nabokov good

starting and reading in order his english works first is a good idea. they loosely decrease in accessibility while increasing in remarkability when read chronologically, so keep that in mind. definitely don't miss speak memory, pnin, and pale fire if you've read lolita. his english short stories are also naturally a lot more consistent than his russian ones, since he wrote a shit ton more in russian.

>>24985110
Are his Russian novels worth reading?

>>24986492
Yep. Also Europ is russian so better get studying, bitch nigga weak faggot coward cuck simp soiboi fag weakling nerd dweeb bugman pusssy

>>24985803
He's a literal /lit/ pseud before /lit/ was even conceived in the mind of the earth archon.
>all style; no depth
>thesaurus abuse
>purple dense prose for the sake of being dense and intellectual
>shat on authors he considered below him based on arbitrary criteria (popularity, readability, moral messages, aesthetics)
>considered himself better than other writers while writing books about pedophilia
>convoluted tricks for the sake of convoluted tricks
>every major novel is like Ready Player One of literature: references on top of references on top of references: the true Riddler of the meme trilogy
>shat on Freud while not understanding Freud
>shat on Einstein's relativity while not understanding Einstein (the fourth part in Ada is the most purplest, up your own ass criticism of Einstein's space and time while being also the most retarded - it's wrong because it doesn't agree with my personal concept of time)
>pedo
Like, prototypical /lit/ 4channer.

Compare to Joyce, who should have been an engineer.
>lucid and invisible but beautiful prose
>coherent narrative that doesn't pull ass tricks
>scientific, mathematical approach to language (Finnegans Wake)
>universal themes
>considered plebs to be smart as him, so disappointed when said plebs missed the point of the books he thought very simple - the problem of the true high IQ individual

I wish he was still alive so I could run him over. I've never hated a lit motherfucker like this piece of shit.

>>24986539
>all style; no depth
depth doesn't mean philosophical posturing and he is highly rereadable.
>purple dense prose for the sake of being dense and intellectual
outside of Ada, which has his most hateable narrating voices, his prose is much more economical. he balances out the longer more complex sentences with the opposite: "I rolled over him. We rolled over me. They rolled over him. We rolled over us."
>shat on authors he considered below him based on arbitrary criteria
i don't know how aesthetics is arbitrary to him saying a book isn't beautiful, especially if he's making a point of the triteness or conventionality of the style. but when critiquing he engages with a book on its own terms as well, tackling the wider points being made if there is any.
>considered himself better than other writers while writing books about pedophilia
while writing books about bad pedophiles that do bad things like all those characters in other books that do bad things.
>convoluted tricks for the sake of convoluted tricks
it's fun. maybe it might also be relevant that the books are about deception.
>references on top of references
he's less allusive than joyce. especially outside of Ada (where the point is to build an alternate history with the counterparts of all those things), even in his later works. i think transparent things has a few references to romeo and juilet and that's it.
>shat on Freud while not understanding Freud
the bait is too obvious here, no fun.
>shat on Einstein's relativity while not understanding Einstein
not only does the Texture of Time part have very little to do with relativity, nabokov himself said he disagrees with Van on it.

what is your reading list?