What do you think?
Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov
This volume brings together candid, revealing interviews with one of the twentieth century's master prose writers. Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) was a Russian American scientist, poet, translator, and professor of literature. Critics throughout the world celebrated him for developing the luminous and enigmatic style which advanced the boundaries of modern literature more than any author since James Joyce. In a career that spanned over six decades, he produced dozens of iconic works, including Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, and his classic autobiography, Speak, Memory.
The twenty-eight interviews and profiles in this collection were drawn from Nabokov's numerous print and broadcast appearances over a period of nineteen years. Beginning with the controversy surrounding the American publication of Lolita in 1958, he offers trenchant, witty views on society, literature, education, the role of the author, and a range of other topics. He discusses the numerous literary and symbolic allusions in his work, his use of parody and satire, as well as analyses of his own literary influences.
Nabokov also provided a detailed portrait of his life--from his aristocratic childhood in pre-revolutionary Russia, education at Cambridge, apprenticeship as an emigre writer in the capitals of Europe, to his decision in 1940 to immigrate to the United States, where he achieved renown and garnered an international readership. The interviews in this collection are essential for seeking a clearer understanding of the life and work of an author who was pivotal in shaping the landscape of contemporary fiction.
The twenty-eight interviews and profiles in this collection were drawn from Nabokov's numerous print and broadcast appearances over a period of nineteen years. Beginning with the controversy surrounding the American publication of Lolita in 1958, he offers trenchant, witty views on society, literature, education, the role of the author, and a range of other topics. He discusses the numerous literary and symbolic allusions in his work, his use of parody and satire, as well as analyses of his own literary influences.
Nabokov also provided a detailed portrait of his life--from his aristocratic childhood in pre-revolutionary Russia, education at Cambridge, apprenticeship as an emigre writer in the capitals of Europe, to his decision in 1940 to immigrate to the United States, where he achieved renown and garnered an international readership. The interviews in this collection are essential for seeking a clearer understanding of the life and work of an author who was pivotal in shaping the landscape of contemporary fiction.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published April 6, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
January 28, 2018
The book is a collection of interviews given by Vladimir Nabokov through out his life. Nabokov rarely gave interviews and when he did he required that the questions be sent to him ahead of time so that he could write out his responses. If it was done live and recorded, Nabokov wrote up notes before hand to bring with him. I'm not sure how to go about reviewing this book, because it's just a collection of interviews and the interviews themselves are pulled from places like The New Yorker or The Atlantic so they're well written. I'm just going to talk about my thoughts on Nabokov instead because I've come out of this unsure how I feel about him. My thoughts themselves don't have much to do with the rating though, that's just based on the quality of the writing. The only thing that made it four stars instead of five was the repetitiveness of the interviews, which isn't the editors fault but just what happens when Nabokov ends up writing up all his answers so their perfect and usually people interviewing him didn't have much to ask him about except Lolita and what he thought of other writers.
I've only read Lolita and one of Nabokov's short stories whose name I can't remember, but I am interested in reading more of his writing, what I have read was amazing. Lolita is probably one of the most well written things I've ever picked up. But on Nabokov himself I'm mostly ambivalent. It's hard for me to like someone when they don't feel authentic, and Nabokov doesn't feel authentic to me because he is so far removed from me. Like he insists, he doesn't put himself in his work, they're art for him and he works hard to create characters and plot lines. Besides his work, these interviews are the only way to get to know him but even here he is rehearsed. I know he says it's because he speaks like a child but no one is as eloquent when they speak as they are when they write and rewrite and edit their responses. It's just how things are and he doesn't have to be brilliant with language constantly.
I just prefer people who seem genuine and spontaneous. Also a lot is said about his sense of humor and wit in the interviews but that never came across to me. There may just be a divide in culture here because he's well read and I might miss references or things he's parodying. Even in interviews I never quite felt like he was being tongue in cheek in the way people who knew him personally said he could be. I do however appreciate how intelligent he clearly was. It's pretty impressive to see the literary career he had along with his work with identification of butterflies (there was an exact word for it but for the life of me I can't retain the word, every time I read it I would forget it until it was once again used).
Also he only gets extra points in my book for hating Freud. I do also empathize with his avoidance of groups and his desire for his books to be pieces of art, beautifully written and something onto themselves without being moralized. That said though the whole nymphet thing bothers me. If we're just talking about the book alone, I can appreciate how well he transports us inside of Humbert's head because I really could empathize with Humbert there at the end when he finds Lolita again, it's just the way everyone else seems to talk about it to him that makes me feel squeamish. The idea of nymphets because an actuality and then having people refer to it as a love story just makes my skin crawl. I don't think it was on Nabokov to condemn Humbert, it's a book taking us into a mind of someone hateful and helping us see things from their point of view. It's just that everyone else seems to be projecting some kind of weird expectations onto it that it was a justification for this kind of behavior or that it's something realistic that a twelve year old could seduce a grown man.
Also at one point Nabokov insults someone's writing by calling it feminine. I don't think that means he's irredeemable and evil, it's just one of those things that as a female make me feel annoyed. Another thing that annoyed me as a female was seeing how Nabokov's wife Vera seemed to have to do all the actual work so that Nabokov could run around and write and be a genius. It didn't really annoy me in terms of how Nabokov was treating her, because he seemed to be loving and respectful as well as treat her like an equal, again it was really the other interviews or journalists that made it annoying by talking about how all great men have a women behind them etc. It just made me roll my eyes after the feminine insult of the other writer to see his wife being put into that role of the caretaker. Again nothing wrong with any of those things and no one here needs to burn for this, it just irritated me, but I mean I'm pretty easily irritated.
I know this review is just going on and on so I just want to complain about one last thing: the way everyone kept painting Nabokov as this long suffering refuge when his family was aristocratic in Russia. Yeah they were exiled but he had so many advantages on his side already, his education clearly being a huge one, that I'm sure a lot of the people who ended up starving under communism did not have. Like it just felt hard to be sympathetic to Nabokov because he couldn't go back to the country he grew up in when he clearly had the means to live outside it and support himself, and ended up working at prestigious universities teaching. He didn't have to fight any odds like the interviews tried to make it seem. Again though this wasn't even Nabokov's doing most of the time, this was the angle taken by whoever was interviewing him.
So after all this I'm not sure hoe to feel about Nabokov because all I got was a few well rehearsed and crafted ideas from the rather limited number of interviews he gave, all of which revolved around the same themes most of the time. I also just felt super annoyed by so much of the discourse by the interviewers themselves much of the time, especially the trying to get him to engage in talking about his opinion on other writers. They clearly where looking to stir up controversy with that.
I've only read Lolita and one of Nabokov's short stories whose name I can't remember, but I am interested in reading more of his writing, what I have read was amazing. Lolita is probably one of the most well written things I've ever picked up. But on Nabokov himself I'm mostly ambivalent. It's hard for me to like someone when they don't feel authentic, and Nabokov doesn't feel authentic to me because he is so far removed from me. Like he insists, he doesn't put himself in his work, they're art for him and he works hard to create characters and plot lines. Besides his work, these interviews are the only way to get to know him but even here he is rehearsed. I know he says it's because he speaks like a child but no one is as eloquent when they speak as they are when they write and rewrite and edit their responses. It's just how things are and he doesn't have to be brilliant with language constantly.
I just prefer people who seem genuine and spontaneous. Also a lot is said about his sense of humor and wit in the interviews but that never came across to me. There may just be a divide in culture here because he's well read and I might miss references or things he's parodying. Even in interviews I never quite felt like he was being tongue in cheek in the way people who knew him personally said he could be. I do however appreciate how intelligent he clearly was. It's pretty impressive to see the literary career he had along with his work with identification of butterflies (there was an exact word for it but for the life of me I can't retain the word, every time I read it I would forget it until it was once again used).
Also he only gets extra points in my book for hating Freud. I do also empathize with his avoidance of groups and his desire for his books to be pieces of art, beautifully written and something onto themselves without being moralized. That said though the whole nymphet thing bothers me. If we're just talking about the book alone, I can appreciate how well he transports us inside of Humbert's head because I really could empathize with Humbert there at the end when he finds Lolita again, it's just the way everyone else seems to talk about it to him that makes me feel squeamish. The idea of nymphets because an actuality and then having people refer to it as a love story just makes my skin crawl. I don't think it was on Nabokov to condemn Humbert, it's a book taking us into a mind of someone hateful and helping us see things from their point of view. It's just that everyone else seems to be projecting some kind of weird expectations onto it that it was a justification for this kind of behavior or that it's something realistic that a twelve year old could seduce a grown man.
Also at one point Nabokov insults someone's writing by calling it feminine. I don't think that means he's irredeemable and evil, it's just one of those things that as a female make me feel annoyed. Another thing that annoyed me as a female was seeing how Nabokov's wife Vera seemed to have to do all the actual work so that Nabokov could run around and write and be a genius. It didn't really annoy me in terms of how Nabokov was treating her, because he seemed to be loving and respectful as well as treat her like an equal, again it was really the other interviews or journalists that made it annoying by talking about how all great men have a women behind them etc. It just made me roll my eyes after the feminine insult of the other writer to see his wife being put into that role of the caretaker. Again nothing wrong with any of those things and no one here needs to burn for this, it just irritated me, but I mean I'm pretty easily irritated.
I know this review is just going on and on so I just want to complain about one last thing: the way everyone kept painting Nabokov as this long suffering refuge when his family was aristocratic in Russia. Yeah they were exiled but he had so many advantages on his side already, his education clearly being a huge one, that I'm sure a lot of the people who ended up starving under communism did not have. Like it just felt hard to be sympathetic to Nabokov because he couldn't go back to the country he grew up in when he clearly had the means to live outside it and support himself, and ended up working at prestigious universities teaching. He didn't have to fight any odds like the interviews tried to make it seem. Again though this wasn't even Nabokov's doing most of the time, this was the angle taken by whoever was interviewing him.
So after all this I'm not sure hoe to feel about Nabokov because all I got was a few well rehearsed and crafted ideas from the rather limited number of interviews he gave, all of which revolved around the same themes most of the time. I also just felt super annoyed by so much of the discourse by the interviewers themselves much of the time, especially the trying to get him to engage in talking about his opinion on other writers. They clearly where looking to stir up controversy with that.
July 24, 2017
http://www.russianartandculture.com/b...
Vladimir Nabokov once said, “Lolita is famous, not I. I am an obscure, doubly obscure, novelist with an unpronounceable name.” (A tip from the family themselves is to pronounce it as ‘Na-BOAK-ov’, where ‘BOAK’ rhymes with smoke.) For those curious about Nabokov himself, Robert Golla’s collation of interviews by Nabokov in Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov serves as an ideal introduction to Nabokov.
The interviews included start from 1958, not long after the American edition of Lolita was published, and finish with an obituary of sorts published in 1977. Whilst the interviews chosen primarily centre on Lolita, his other works are briefly mentioned and the reader can also discover recurring themes that are important to Nabokov. For instance, we see Nabokov-as-lepidopterist several times and how he helped to challenge the classification system for cataloguing butterflies. There are even new anecdotes that even die-hard Nabokovians may not have heard before such as his son, Dmitri Nabokov, filling out his father’s occupation as a tennis coach in his school registration form.
Helpfully, Golla provides a succinct yet detailed chronology on Nabokov’s life and enables easy-referencing by listing the interviewer and year in the heading. Nabokovians may be wondering however, what Conversations adds to the enormity of Nabokov scholarship already present. After all, it seems that not a year can go by without a new book on Nabokov being published. This is particularly true given that Nabokov himself collated and provided commentary on his own interviews in Strong Opinions (1973). In terms of overlap, only three interviews in Strong Opinions are also present in Conversations, leaving 25 interviews that Golla describes as unpublished or untranscribed. Highlights of the collation include Boyle’s and Levy’s interviews. Thus, Conversations has its merits and is not published like Strong Opinions, merely to fulfil his contract with the American publisher McGraw-Hill for eleven books within 5 years.
Book Cover for Strong Opinions by Vladimir Nabokov
Importantly, there are a few problems with the interviews. The interviews themselves slightly overlap and contain inaccuracies (e.g. one interviewer describes Nabokov’s father as assassinated when another correctly observes that V.D. Nabokov died shielding the assassin’s true target). Golla himself provides no guiding footnotes or any indications of his editing. There are also problems for academics using this as source material. However, Conversations is ideal for those who are not ready to tackle Brian Boyd’s two-volume biography or ready to commit to Nabokov’s posthumous Lectures on Literature series published in three-volumes. Overall, Conversations is a good primer for those new to Nabokov but will be mostly familiar to specialists and confirm previous scholarship.
Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov, edited by Robert Golla, (USA: University of Missippi, 2017)
Vladimir Nabokov once said, “Lolita is famous, not I. I am an obscure, doubly obscure, novelist with an unpronounceable name.” (A tip from the family themselves is to pronounce it as ‘Na-BOAK-ov’, where ‘BOAK’ rhymes with smoke.) For those curious about Nabokov himself, Robert Golla’s collation of interviews by Nabokov in Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov serves as an ideal introduction to Nabokov.
The interviews included start from 1958, not long after the American edition of Lolita was published, and finish with an obituary of sorts published in 1977. Whilst the interviews chosen primarily centre on Lolita, his other works are briefly mentioned and the reader can also discover recurring themes that are important to Nabokov. For instance, we see Nabokov-as-lepidopterist several times and how he helped to challenge the classification system for cataloguing butterflies. There are even new anecdotes that even die-hard Nabokovians may not have heard before such as his son, Dmitri Nabokov, filling out his father’s occupation as a tennis coach in his school registration form.
Helpfully, Golla provides a succinct yet detailed chronology on Nabokov’s life and enables easy-referencing by listing the interviewer and year in the heading. Nabokovians may be wondering however, what Conversations adds to the enormity of Nabokov scholarship already present. After all, it seems that not a year can go by without a new book on Nabokov being published. This is particularly true given that Nabokov himself collated and provided commentary on his own interviews in Strong Opinions (1973). In terms of overlap, only three interviews in Strong Opinions are also present in Conversations, leaving 25 interviews that Golla describes as unpublished or untranscribed. Highlights of the collation include Boyle’s and Levy’s interviews. Thus, Conversations has its merits and is not published like Strong Opinions, merely to fulfil his contract with the American publisher McGraw-Hill for eleven books within 5 years.
Book Cover for Strong Opinions by Vladimir Nabokov
Importantly, there are a few problems with the interviews. The interviews themselves slightly overlap and contain inaccuracies (e.g. one interviewer describes Nabokov’s father as assassinated when another correctly observes that V.D. Nabokov died shielding the assassin’s true target). Golla himself provides no guiding footnotes or any indications of his editing. There are also problems for academics using this as source material. However, Conversations is ideal for those who are not ready to tackle Brian Boyd’s two-volume biography or ready to commit to Nabokov’s posthumous Lectures on Literature series published in three-volumes. Overall, Conversations is a good primer for those new to Nabokov but will be mostly familiar to specialists and confirm previous scholarship.
Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov, edited by Robert Golla, (USA: University of Missippi, 2017)
July 7, 2017
‘Conversations with Nabokov’ edited by Robert Golla consists of an introduction and 28 interviews, covering the period from the US publication of ‘Lolita’ in 1958, until Nabokov’s death in 1977, although his responses frequently refer to his life before ‘Lolita’ brought him international fame.
Many of the interviews have not appeared since they were first published, and several appear in print in this collection for the first time. An example is an interview with Robert Hughes for National Educational Television, dated 2 September 1965, which, we are told in the Introduction, went “unaired” and is “published here for the first time”.
In fact the ‘New York Times’ on 30 January 1966 published excerpts from this interview, which can be found online, where it is also stated that the program will be broadcast on Channel 13.
Comparing these excerpts published online with the version printed in this book raises serious questions about the editor’s competence as the online version appears to be not only better punctuated but more accurate in recording Nabokov’s actual words.
Thus Golla has Nabokov saying he cannot promise “to stare down another fifteen” years in Europe, whilst the online version has him stating that he cannot promise “to stay around” for that length of time. Gollo also has Nabokov opine that, “Everything is bedaze when such formidable mediocrities as Galsworthy, Dreiser, Tagore, Maxim Gorky, Romain Rolland and Thomas Mann were being accepted as geniuses …” whilst the online excerpt much more plausibly has him begin this sentence, “Ever since the days …”.
The interviews themselves are fascinating, dealing not just with Nabokov’s life and work but his strongly expressed opinions on a wide range of subjects. Nabokov intensely disliked extemporising, believing himself to be “not a good speaker”. He was also highly desirous of protecting his privacy and his image. Would-be interviewers would thus have to submit questions in advance, to which Nabokov would respond in writing. The quality of the interviews is thus on a par with the quality of his prose: masterly.
This book would thus undoubtedly merit five stars were it not for the problematic way in which at least some of the interviews appear to have been edited.
Many of the interviews have not appeared since they were first published, and several appear in print in this collection for the first time. An example is an interview with Robert Hughes for National Educational Television, dated 2 September 1965, which, we are told in the Introduction, went “unaired” and is “published here for the first time”.
In fact the ‘New York Times’ on 30 January 1966 published excerpts from this interview, which can be found online, where it is also stated that the program will be broadcast on Channel 13.
Comparing these excerpts published online with the version printed in this book raises serious questions about the editor’s competence as the online version appears to be not only better punctuated but more accurate in recording Nabokov’s actual words.
Thus Golla has Nabokov saying he cannot promise “to stare down another fifteen” years in Europe, whilst the online version has him stating that he cannot promise “to stay around” for that length of time. Gollo also has Nabokov opine that, “Everything is bedaze when such formidable mediocrities as Galsworthy, Dreiser, Tagore, Maxim Gorky, Romain Rolland and Thomas Mann were being accepted as geniuses …” whilst the online excerpt much more plausibly has him begin this sentence, “Ever since the days …”.
The interviews themselves are fascinating, dealing not just with Nabokov’s life and work but his strongly expressed opinions on a wide range of subjects. Nabokov intensely disliked extemporising, believing himself to be “not a good speaker”. He was also highly desirous of protecting his privacy and his image. Would-be interviewers would thus have to submit questions in advance, to which Nabokov would respond in writing. The quality of the interviews is thus on a par with the quality of his prose: masterly.
This book would thus undoubtedly merit five stars were it not for the problematic way in which at least some of the interviews appear to have been edited.
October 4, 2017
A collection of 28 interviews with and articles about Vladimir Nabokov, ranging from the 1950s to just after his death in 1977. Essential reading for all Nabokov enthusiasts and a useful, entertaining and illuminating volume.
October 7, 2024
Imagine writing those incredible novels all on index cards...
Enjoyed almost all of this. His opinions on contemporary and past authors are delectably bitter, sometimes blasphemous, and overall very entertaining. Loved how outright mean and critical he was to and of his own critics. I remember him commenting on one of Sartre's "remarkably silly article" on a novel of his. Drag that weirdo!
His reflections (comments?) on the Bolshevik revolution are interesting to read, since I'm always more inclined to regular old marxist sympathising analysis of the birth of the USSR, it's interesting (?) to see an aristocrat's perspective of events ....
Enjoyed almost all of this. His opinions on contemporary and past authors are delectably bitter, sometimes blasphemous, and overall very entertaining. Loved how outright mean and critical he was to and of his own critics. I remember him commenting on one of Sartre's "remarkably silly article" on a novel of his. Drag that weirdo!
His reflections (comments?) on the Bolshevik revolution are interesting to read, since I'm always more inclined to regular old marxist sympathising analysis of the birth of the USSR, it's interesting (?) to see an aristocrat's perspective of events ....
May 15, 2018
There's not a ton of new information in this book, but it's nice to have a variety of Nabokov interviews in one place especially when I need to do a bit of research for prepping a course or writing a paper.
January 7, 2020
fena değil. epey tekrar var.
January 7, 2022
Fascinating collection of interviews given by Nabokov from 1958 to 1977.
Nabokov is always interesting, even when his (often verbose) interviewers are not. One reason for his enduring popularity is Nabokov's dislike of Groups and Political "Movements", his refusal to be a "messenger Boy" and his contempt for "Witch Doctor" Freud. This helped keep his novels from being dated.
Nabokov's books, of course, reflect his own tastes. His favorites were Proust, Joyce, Flaubert, Bely, and Kafka. Tolstoy's "Anna Karrrenia" was admired, "War and Peace" not. Hemingway, Conrad, Fitzgerald, James, and Mann are dismissed as lesser talents. Faulkner's novels?"corn-cobby chronicles"
So many great lines:
Interviewer: What have you learned from Joyce
Nabokov: Nothing.
The book ends with a piece by willam F. Buckley. Its too bad, Nabokov never made a "Firing Line" appearance.
Nabokov is always interesting, even when his (often verbose) interviewers are not. One reason for his enduring popularity is Nabokov's dislike of Groups and Political "Movements", his refusal to be a "messenger Boy" and his contempt for "Witch Doctor" Freud. This helped keep his novels from being dated.
Nabokov's books, of course, reflect his own tastes. His favorites were Proust, Joyce, Flaubert, Bely, and Kafka. Tolstoy's "Anna Karrrenia" was admired, "War and Peace" not. Hemingway, Conrad, Fitzgerald, James, and Mann are dismissed as lesser talents. Faulkner's novels?"corn-cobby chronicles"
So many great lines:
Interviewer: What have you learned from Joyce
Nabokov: Nothing.
The book ends with a piece by willam F. Buckley. Its too bad, Nabokov never made a "Firing Line" appearance.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews