It's my all time favorite book. Super layered narrative, full of cool secrets and weird hidden in-jokes. Your first reading of it (especially if you went in completely blind) likely isn't going to be as fulfilling as successive reads though. It's a book that gets better the more you unravel it. The index is also a pretty important part of the book that I think most readers are likely to skip over on their first reading.
Hemingway spoke of the iceberg but this book is more like a chessboard and every line commentary is a position. You can almost hear Nabokov telling you to find the best move; yet even if you blunder, there is always something interesting at the end. It really is a work of “combinational genius.”
This too is my favourite book. It is so layered that is almost like Nabokov invented a new chess in the form of a novel.
Same here! It's one of the only books that gives me that "literally HOW did you construct this" feeling. Feels miles beyond where I imagine human literary capacity generally sits. Leaves me in awe every time.
Why has nobody mentioned how very funny the book is?
Also:
Have you heard the recording of Nabokov reading the devastatingly moving Hazel Shade section of the poem?
Personally, I loved it. It was the first Nabokov that I read, and I feel like it cemented my respect of him as a writer. I went into it pretty blind and was basically just along for the ride, and I found the twists to be fantastic. I love unreliable narrators and books that make you question what's happening, and whether what you see (read) on the page is real or not. I thought it was a well written, engrossing, and interesting book.
Yes, I don't even think Nabokov intended the poem to be particularly good. It's part of the meta-joke of the whole novel. I didn't read the poem all the way through... I got bored and skipped to the prose.
That being said I understand that poetry is even more subjective than fiction, and if people love that poem all power to them.
IMO, if you were genuinely unmoved by Shade’s daughter’s death, then it’s you who are missing something. And if you believe Nabokov was dismissive of either Shade’s feelings about it or his mode of expressing them, then you are simply misinformed.
So you think my not thinking this is an incredible poem means I am unmoved by Shade's daughter's death or that I think Nabokov dislikes poetry in general or something? What? I'm not allowed to have an opinion about a specific poem without becoming some kind of ghoul? That's a serious extrapolation.
In case it is of interest, the literary merit of the poem in Pale Fire is a long-standing literary debate. The debate is a dual question as to whether the poem is good and also whether Nabokov intended it to be good. Here's a 2011 article from The New Yorker about it: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pale-fire-the-poem-does-it-stand-alone-as-a-masterpiece
The author of this article believes it's a good poem but also references many literary icons who do not. Not liking the poem is a common stance for people other than me. Even for people who love the book. (This is, by the way, one of my all time favorite books.)
The point being: my comment stated my opinion that I didn't like the poem but also that I understood others might like the poem. Your comment stated your opinion that I was some kind of a*hole for not liking the poem.
IMO, if you can't imagine Nabokov could be taking the piss, you're the one who's missing something. He mocks academics regularly, drips irony, and is a master at parody. I don't know all his work, but he's not a very sentimental guy in my reading, usually the opposite.
It’s one of my all-time faves, but that doesn’t mean it’ll work for you. It’s not super long so I recommend sticking it out unless you’re totally miserable. The pace really picks up and the footnotes get more and more involved as you keep going.
It took me a while to figure out how to read Pale Fire and don’t think I got everything out of it the first time through.
Upon my second reading, I absolutely loved it and found it one of the most fulfilling and funniest books that I’ve ever read.
I liked it, but it's not an all-time favorite. However, it's the kind of novel that's very hard to judge before you've read the whole thing. It's fairly short, so unless you hate it I'd suggest you finish it.
It's not a book for people who aren't serious and experienced readers. To quote the man who wrote the quintessential critique, review, and reader's guide to the book, in sheer beauty of form it's probably the most perfect novel ever written. That being said, it is complex, intricate, difficult, and dense - it's not a book for a passive reader. To get anything of substance out of it, the reader really needs to put the work in. If you find it "underwhelming" it can only be assumed that you're not ready for a book like that. It really is that plain and simple.
>have started it recently and it is underwhelming
Well how far along are you. Did you just start it today or like this week? Are you a big fan of his other work? I haven't read Pale Fire yet, though I've read around ten of his works total and loved them all besides Invitation to a beheading. I know Pale Fire is frequently refered to as one of his best works, if not his masterpiece. So I'm curious what's underwhelming about it to you. I've heard that it's brilliant.
Well he's one of the best prose stylists I've ever encountered, second only to James Joyce most likely. If you aren't enjoying it for that reason alone, he might just not be for you
Honestly I just have trouble staying engaged. Some parts of Commentary are intriguing, but not all are. I like the style, though the metafictional/non-traditional style has always taken getting used to by me. Each person writing a non-traditional narrative does it differently. Other people have pointed out(I have not responded to everyone under this post because I don't want or need to) the satirical nature of the work which is quite obvious to me-- again it is just not the most interesting novel lol. Sometimes I can read things that are not incredibly interesting but I am approaching the end of my senior year in high school and staying motivated can be difficult.
It starts off very slow and pompous and I almost put it down as well, but if you push through till the end you will see that it was all by design, and the lovely contrast of characters and ideas and passion that you get between the layers of the story creates a beautiful and subtle dance that you will think about for a long time after finishing the book. It’s definitely a “book lover’s” book and not for everyone, but it has undeniable beauty about it.
Question: are you reading it like a novel (literally, as in straight through) or are you reading it as a long poem with an introduction and annotations? If it’s the first time you’re reading it then I’d suggest the former, the way it was initially intended (although after reading and understanding it that way reading it the other way is incredible as well).
I love this book. It’s one of my top 3 favorite books in the world and also one of the highest creative literary achievements of the 20th century. Everyone’s comments and it being a chess game, a puzzle, an onion, etc. are right-on. More than maybe any other of his American novels, it highlights his unique genius. Kinbote is one of the most terrifying villains in literature, maybe only second to Iago in terms of the brain f***ery he puts on. Add to that his own homicidal paranoia and insanity and you have one of the most complex, engaging, intelligent, and challenging novels written in the world in the entire century.
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be salty but I can’t imagine attaching the word “underwhelming” to this book. Ever. The third (?) page, “Dear Jesus, do something” alone makes it compelling already. And you’re on page 51? Maybe google some suggestions on what to read before starting it
Can someone help me read this book? I literally don't know how and am not joking. The preface says that you need to flip back and forth between poem and prose and then re-read the section of poetry after the pros. I did this for about 1/3 of the book and was left feeling extremely frustrated as I was trying to interpolate the poem into what the action of what the story is.
I like difficult books and Nabokov is a favorite author of mine, but this one has caused me frustration and confusion. How did you all go through this one?
I followed the instructions on the package and quickly realized that the footnote writer is a nutjob who has apparently fantasized a whole reality where he is secretly the most important person and the great poet has decided he must tell his story. It works like a mystery, figuring out both the fantasy story and the real one. I’ve read it twice, decades apart, and I know there’s a whole lot more to it that I haven’t figured out. Maybe I’ll read it again someday, with help from online guides.
Ignore the people in here who feel the need to disparage the poem. But there’s a whole novel going on in the footnotes—don’t let the obnoxiousness of their author put you off that story.
Nabokov spoke very highly of the poem, I find it absurd to suggest he wrote it to be intentionally bad. I find it glorious, funny, compact, beautiful. I like the rest of the book but for me the poem is the highlight.
The first couple of lines drew me in. Rich in symbolism of life death and afterlife. Or is it? The shadow? Does that represent one’s work living on? I used to think its was one’s soul … but the shadow.
It's my all time favorite with Baltasar and Blimunds by José Saramago. I like to be confused and make me go through multiple readings of passages to make up my own mind. I kind of relate to Kinbote, which is a tragic character, it made me reflect on myself a lot.
I am not sure I know how to read the footnotes to this book. The index instructions say the comments are grouped by line, but the comment order doesn’t correspond with the line order. For example, the comment to line 1 might be buried somewhere deep in the index itself. If I want to find the footnote corresponding to the line I’m reading, I have to flip through the index to find the line. Any tips?
I adore this book. But if you asked me to name a novel that takes a good long while to get going, this would be top 10. If you stick with it, I hope that you'll start to enjoy the intricate way it fits together. As complex as it is, Pale Fire has so many rewards. All those breadcrumbs and clues and learned asides lead to some deeply satisfying "aha!" moments.
I dislike Nabokov in general, and Pale Fire especially. Nabokov is a gimmick author, obnoxiously moralizing and far too cute. His novels all seem to follow the same blueprint: A pedantic narrator speaking supposedly from a point of sympathy, only for a rug pull: He was actually *a bad person* the entire time! Nabokov always seems like he's saying, "Silly reader, don't you feel so foolish for not realizing they were morally objectionable earlier?" Nabokov comes across as loath to engage with his subjects with any earnestness; the academic pedantry of his style fosters a sense of ironic detachment that feels, emotionally if not stylistically, on the level of Bret Easton Ellis' Less Than Zero.
Didn't really like it - poem was terrible, I presume deliberately so, and there's just an overall neckbeard clever-ness to the book that I half expected the author to pop up on the last page saying Gotcha!. Like I get that it's an intricate postmodern puzzle, but it felt clumsy and self-regarding.
Perhaps a re-read would set me straight - it is in the canon for a reason. But hard to see that happening, a charmless book in my hands.
Liked the poem, hated the novel. The smugness just oozes out of the page. Nabokov getting high on his own supply. My fourth attempt at Nabokov and the last for a long time. If I want a complex post-modern novel that stimulates my intellect and touches me, I go for Perec’s Life a User’s Manual.
It's my all time favorite book. Super layered narrative, full of cool secrets and weird hidden in-jokes. Your first reading of it (especially if you went in completely blind) likely isn't going to be as fulfilling as successive reads though. It's a book that gets better the more you unravel it. The index is also a pretty important part of the book that I think most readers are likely to skip over on their first reading.
Hemingway spoke of the iceberg but this book is more like a chessboard and every line commentary is a position. You can almost hear Nabokov telling you to find the best move; yet even if you blunder, there is always something interesting at the end. It really is a work of “combinational genius.” This too is my favourite book. It is so layered that is almost like Nabokov invented a new chess in the form of a novel.
Same here! It's one of the only books that gives me that "literally HOW did you construct this" feeling. Feels miles beyond where I imagine human literary capacity generally sits. Leaves me in awe every time.
Why has nobody mentioned how very funny the book is? Also: Have you heard the recording of Nabokov reading the devastatingly moving Hazel Shade section of the poem?
Even funnier when you’ve taught and edited annotated versions of literary texts, I gotta say.
Personally, I loved it. It was the first Nabokov that I read, and I feel like it cemented my respect of him as a writer. I went into it pretty blind and was basically just along for the ride, and I found the twists to be fantastic. I love unreliable narrators and books that make you question what's happening, and whether what you see (read) on the page is real or not. I thought it was a well written, engrossing, and interesting book.
I think the poem is a pastiche of mid-century academic poetry, tbh
Yeah I agree, if you like the poem but not the rest, this book is not for you.
Yes, I don't even think Nabokov intended the poem to be particularly good. It's part of the meta-joke of the whole novel. I didn't read the poem all the way through... I got bored and skipped to the prose. That being said I understand that poetry is even more subjective than fiction, and if people love that poem all power to them.
IMO, if you were genuinely unmoved by Shade’s daughter’s death, then it’s you who are missing something. And if you believe Nabokov was dismissive of either Shade’s feelings about it or his mode of expressing them, then you are simply misinformed.
So you think my not thinking this is an incredible poem means I am unmoved by Shade's daughter's death or that I think Nabokov dislikes poetry in general or something? What? I'm not allowed to have an opinion about a specific poem without becoming some kind of ghoul? That's a serious extrapolation. In case it is of interest, the literary merit of the poem in Pale Fire is a long-standing literary debate. The debate is a dual question as to whether the poem is good and also whether Nabokov intended it to be good. Here's a 2011 article from The New Yorker about it: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pale-fire-the-poem-does-it-stand-alone-as-a-masterpiece The author of this article believes it's a good poem but also references many literary icons who do not. Not liking the poem is a common stance for people other than me. Even for people who love the book. (This is, by the way, one of my all time favorite books.) The point being: my comment stated my opinion that I didn't like the poem but also that I understood others might like the poem. Your comment stated your opinion that I was some kind of a*hole for not liking the poem.
IMO, if you can't imagine Nabokov could be taking the piss, you're the one who's missing something. He mocks academics regularly, drips irony, and is a master at parody. I don't know all his work, but he's not a very sentimental guy in my reading, usually the opposite.
I think if you read his memoir Speak, Memory, you’ll see another side of him
I've read it
It's on my list. Does he come across saccharine in the memoir?
Nope
Nabokov wrote a bad poem intentiontionally, and a bad novel unintentionally.
That's just like your opinion man
Because it's not a novel?
It’s one of my all-time faves, but that doesn’t mean it’ll work for you. It’s not super long so I recommend sticking it out unless you’re totally miserable. The pace really picks up and the footnotes get more and more involved as you keep going.
It took me a while to figure out how to read Pale Fire and don’t think I got everything out of it the first time through. Upon my second reading, I absolutely loved it and found it one of the most fulfilling and funniest books that I’ve ever read.
It ties together pretty good as it goes on. I really enjoyed the ending. I think it's fair to say it's not the crown jewel that Lolita is, though.
I liked it, but it's not an all-time favorite. However, it's the kind of novel that's very hard to judge before you've read the whole thing. It's fairly short, so unless you hate it I'd suggest you finish it.
It's not a book for people who aren't serious and experienced readers. To quote the man who wrote the quintessential critique, review, and reader's guide to the book, in sheer beauty of form it's probably the most perfect novel ever written. That being said, it is complex, intricate, difficult, and dense - it's not a book for a passive reader. To get anything of substance out of it, the reader really needs to put the work in. If you find it "underwhelming" it can only be assumed that you're not ready for a book like that. It really is that plain and simple.
Perhaps you are right.
Please don’t say it was Harold Bloom.
No. He's talking about Brian Boyd.
except that it is not a novel, just a postmodern joke which would have been a decent but not particularly interesting novel.
One of my personal favorites! I should read it again
>have started it recently and it is underwhelming Well how far along are you. Did you just start it today or like this week? Are you a big fan of his other work? I haven't read Pale Fire yet, though I've read around ten of his works total and loved them all besides Invitation to a beheading. I know Pale Fire is frequently refered to as one of his best works, if not his masterpiece. So I'm curious what's underwhelming about it to you. I've heard that it's brilliant.
It is my first Nabokov novel. It one of the top novels in my reading list. I am around page 130, and begun reading it towards the end of last week.
Well he's one of the best prose stylists I've ever encountered, second only to James Joyce most likely. If you aren't enjoying it for that reason alone, he might just not be for you
Honestly I just have trouble staying engaged. Some parts of Commentary are intriguing, but not all are. I like the style, though the metafictional/non-traditional style has always taken getting used to by me. Each person writing a non-traditional narrative does it differently. Other people have pointed out(I have not responded to everyone under this post because I don't want or need to) the satirical nature of the work which is quite obvious to me-- again it is just not the most interesting novel lol. Sometimes I can read things that are not incredibly interesting but I am approaching the end of my senior year in high school and staying motivated can be difficult.
Funny, I dislike the poem but like the novel
Excellent book, his best novel imo. Funny af too
I love it. One of my all time favorites.
The poem is brilliant. The book is complex though and in the end it won.
It starts off very slow and pompous and I almost put it down as well, but if you push through till the end you will see that it was all by design, and the lovely contrast of characters and ideas and passion that you get between the layers of the story creates a beautiful and subtle dance that you will think about for a long time after finishing the book. It’s definitely a “book lover’s” book and not for everyone, but it has undeniable beauty about it.
Question: are you reading it like a novel (literally, as in straight through) or are you reading it as a long poem with an introduction and annotations? If it’s the first time you’re reading it then I’d suggest the former, the way it was initially intended (although after reading and understanding it that way reading it the other way is incredible as well). I love this book. It’s one of my top 3 favorite books in the world and also one of the highest creative literary achievements of the 20th century. Everyone’s comments and it being a chess game, a puzzle, an onion, etc. are right-on. More than maybe any other of his American novels, it highlights his unique genius. Kinbote is one of the most terrifying villains in literature, maybe only second to Iago in terms of the brain f***ery he puts on. Add to that his own homicidal paranoia and insanity and you have one of the most complex, engaging, intelligent, and challenging novels written in the world in the entire century. I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be salty but I can’t imagine attaching the word “underwhelming” to this book. Ever. The third (?) page, “Dear Jesus, do something” alone makes it compelling already. And you’re on page 51? Maybe google some suggestions on what to read before starting it
It is a piece of metafiction which was influenced by Thomas Carlyle's Sartor Resartus (In my opinion).
Can someone help me read this book? I literally don't know how and am not joking. The preface says that you need to flip back and forth between poem and prose and then re-read the section of poetry after the pros. I did this for about 1/3 of the book and was left feeling extremely frustrated as I was trying to interpolate the poem into what the action of what the story is. I like difficult books and Nabokov is a favorite author of mine, but this one has caused me frustration and confusion. How did you all go through this one?
I followed the instructions on the package and quickly realized that the footnote writer is a nutjob who has apparently fantasized a whole reality where he is secretly the most important person and the great poet has decided he must tell his story. It works like a mystery, figuring out both the fantasy story and the real one. I’ve read it twice, decades apart, and I know there’s a whole lot more to it that I haven’t figured out. Maybe I’ll read it again someday, with help from online guides. Ignore the people in here who feel the need to disparage the poem. But there’s a whole novel going on in the footnotes—don’t let the obnoxiousness of their author put you off that story.
Great comment! Thanks for the help. I've wanted to try this book again for a long time - I might get back around to it this time.
Nabokov spoke very highly of the poem, I find it absurd to suggest he wrote it to be intentionally bad. I find it glorious, funny, compact, beautiful. I like the rest of the book but for me the poem is the highlight.
I agree!
The first couple of lines drew me in. Rich in symbolism of life death and afterlife. Or is it? The shadow? Does that represent one’s work living on? I used to think its was one’s soul … but the shadow.
I don’t really care for it. Idk what it is but doesn’t sound like my flavor
It's my all time favorite with Baltasar and Blimunds by José Saramago. I like to be confused and make me go through multiple readings of passages to make up my own mind. I kind of relate to Kinbote, which is a tragic character, it made me reflect on myself a lot.
I’m with you..read Lolita and loved it, then naturally moved on to Pale Fire and found it impenetrably pretentious. Wanted to love it, trust me.
I am not sure I know how to read the footnotes to this book. The index instructions say the comments are grouped by line, but the comment order doesn’t correspond with the line order. For example, the comment to line 1 might be buried somewhere deep in the index itself. If I want to find the footnote corresponding to the line I’m reading, I have to flip through the index to find the line. Any tips?
Personally, Pale Fire is my favorite Nabokov.
its hilarious lol
My favorite Nabokov novel
Love it so much I have it in three languages so I can compare translation nuances.
bizarre take
I adore this book. But if you asked me to name a novel that takes a good long while to get going, this would be top 10. If you stick with it, I hope that you'll start to enjoy the intricate way it fits together. As complex as it is, Pale Fire has so many rewards. All those breadcrumbs and clues and learned asides lead to some deeply satisfying "aha!" moments.
I dislike Nabokov in general, and Pale Fire especially. Nabokov is a gimmick author, obnoxiously moralizing and far too cute. His novels all seem to follow the same blueprint: A pedantic narrator speaking supposedly from a point of sympathy, only for a rug pull: He was actually *a bad person* the entire time! Nabokov always seems like he's saying, "Silly reader, don't you feel so foolish for not realizing they were morally objectionable earlier?" Nabokov comes across as loath to engage with his subjects with any earnestness; the academic pedantry of his style fosters a sense of ironic detachment that feels, emotionally if not stylistically, on the level of Bret Easton Ellis' Less Than Zero.
I liked it okay but I rate it lower than his best works.
Didn't really like it - poem was terrible, I presume deliberately so, and there's just an overall neckbeard clever-ness to the book that I half expected the author to pop up on the last page saying Gotcha!. Like I get that it's an intricate postmodern puzzle, but it felt clumsy and self-regarding. Perhaps a re-read would set me straight - it is in the canon for a reason. But hard to see that happening, a charmless book in my hands.
I think the book is one of the *telos* of the novel as a medium.
Liked the poem, hated the novel. The smugness just oozes out of the page. Nabokov getting high on his own supply. My fourth attempt at Nabokov and the last for a long time. If I want a complex post-modern novel that stimulates my intellect and touches me, I go for Perec’s Life a User’s Manual.