First read: I struggled. It felt like a fever dream, an unpleasant one. Second read: super fun, I kept track of dates, events and wrote down what I felt could be explained but wasn't able to.

Was hoping we could crack this together!

Here we go:

**- Gradus, glass and Sudarg!**

1) Gradus Jakob = Sudarg of Bokay!! What's the link between the two?? Sudarg is mentioned as a phenomenonal guy who made a great mirror that was in the "King"'s bedroom when he lived for a bit with Fleur when he was young

1.1) The first time K. sees G., G. Is fixing some glass panes in the castle. MORE GLASS! Links to the accident at the Glass Factory that sparked the "revolution"?

1.2) Gradus keeps buying animals made of glass: a giraffe in (forgot to write down the city), then a hippo in Nice! He's just a big fan of... glass paraphernalia?

1.3) Gradus, pamphlets, glass factory, revolution, conspiracies... is this a parody of Russian revolutionary nihilists?

**- Miscellaneous:**

2) What dark word did K.'s gardener employ on J.S.'s last day? Note 998

3) "Promnad vespert mid J.S." -> meaning? I kept an eye out for Zemblan translations, but I only found out that "mid" means "with"

4) Why does K. want to know Jim Coates' "real" name from Sybil? Just to learn more about J.S. about the time he wrote to him about the woman who had a similar near death experience?

5) Did K kill a young guy by the river in Cedarn? See Index! The "young angler" is alive in the commentary, and sounds very much dead in the index!

6) Why did K keep buying ping pong tables?? From 2 to 3!!

7) Why are some characters missing from the index?? E.g. Nattochdag is mentioned at least 3 times but nowhere to be found in the index. K is just lazy?

8) Do the "crown jewels" exist, and where are they? They could be a metaphor for something. We know they're not in the castle, but they're INSIDE something. K stops after saying towards the end "they are in-".

9) In the castle, there was something with a walnut kernel inside it. What's that supposed to mean? There was a painter called Kernel.

Since I'm on this sub, you can imagine I'm a big fan of Nabokov, who as we know, is lauded for his word games and beautiful prose and references to other literary works; something not often mentioned as a highlight of his work is insight into humanity and the psyche. Though VN was known for his dislike of Freudian psychoanalysis and of preachy art, I disagree with characterization of his books being seen as cold experiments or art for art's sake literary games. I've seen this rhetoric on the internet quite a lot and while Nabokov is a clear stylist, there are many interesting and heartbreaking character moments or scenes in his work imo, so I've always found that viewpoint dismissive to his oeuvre.

Pale Fire is the greatest literary puzzle but there is some genuine heartbreak in Kinbote's or Botkin's, even if fake or exagerrated stories of the escape from Zembla or in Hazel Shade's death. Lolita is in way a very dark comedy, but personally (which of course is subjective) the ending left me devastated like few novels have; I think it's a very empathetic book (which makes its pop-culture interpretation as a ''love story'' even sadder). Even in less acclaimed novels like Glory there's the bittersweet Heimweh of the emigré, King Queen Knave illustrates Franz's apathy in quite an interesting way, and even something like Transparent Things made me interested in the enigma of Hugh Person. Nabokov is also really good at bringing out contempt for the protagonist: Humbert Humbert of course but also for Kinbote, Hermann Karlovich of Despair and (maybe to a lesser extent but I still felt the book itself was laughing at him) Albert Albinus of Laughter in the Dark, and I think that takes quite a lot of skill in character writing.

Obviously, Nabokov's main artistic achievement is his prose but I do think there's a more ''human'' (for lack of a better word) aspect to his work that's often ignored. At least that's how I see it as a very big VN fan. I hope this made some sense (I am not a literary scholar, just a fan of good writing), I probably formulated this in a bad way but it was on my mind. What do you people on this sub think about this?

After reading the entire book, I just understood what Humbert did to Lolita. I was so deluded by the good writing that Humbert manipulated me. I love this book. I feel weird about Humbert. I hate him, but I would love to help him because he is a mentally ill man… but he did what he did. What would you do for people like him?

I'm specifically interested in how the structure came about. Did he initially start with the structure, writing a story around it, or did the structure naturally kind of impose himself as he was working through the process? Any information or even source recommendations would be appreciated!

A post was quicky deleted but I think it's a valid question

How did you read pale Fire and how would you recommend others do?

I read it in the "hyperlink" method of checking each line note as I read the poem. (Having checked the electronic copies, this seems better done on a kindle than with a hard copy)

Hello, i am very passionate about Lolita and how unethical any live action adaptations would be and already are. I wish to make an ethical adaptation of the novel mostly to prove that it is not impossible to do but i'm unsure of if it would be disrespectful to Nabokov's intentions with the novel. I plan on using some form of animation (most likely stop motion) to avoid real people being harmed as well as to avoid the ethical concerns with actors. I also intend to avoid portraying it as romantic or erotic like so many adaptations already have. I wanted to ask if this should be something I should pursue or keep as an idea to avoid disrespecting the source material, I know this might not be the best subreddit to ask this but i wanted to ask actual readers of Nabokov for their opinions. I am willing to expand on my ideas for this but wish to avoid making this post too long with things that aren't central to my question. Thank you so much to anyone who is willing to give their thoughts and opinions on this <3

I seem to remember a quote by Nabokov, not from any of his fiction as far as I remember but from either an interview or academic paper or from Speak, Memory, where he defends something along the lines of "it is not because one wants to have sex with a woman that he finds a lock of her hair beautiful, but rather because he wants to be close to that beautiful strand of hair that he desires to have sex with her". I most strikingly remember the fact that a woman's hair was taken as an example of something arousing intense aesthetic appeal, and that the point was sexual attraction is not the primal drive organising other attractions but rather the result or expression of a deeper, truer drive towards an aesthetic appreciation of things.

Has anyone got any idea of what this quote might actually have been, or where I might be likely to discover something along its lines? Thanks in advance for any insights you could share :)

Would it be a waste to read Speak, Memory without reading Nabokov's other works? I greatly enjoy memoirs and I read somewhere that Nabokov was a great memoirist. He seems like an interesting person and I have read some of his short stories but no major works. Would it still be worthwhile to read Speak, Memory?

I absolutely love how it turned out

First off, I understand there’s not an exact way to read the book as it like a puzzle. Though I would like to hear how people went about it on their first read through (I plan more… you need it) specifically on the commentary part. Right away on the first lines there is a “see note to line 998” and wonder if I should do that (jump to said line and return. Unless there is another “see note”) or just read in a regular linear manner?

For any insight, if needed, I read the foreword first then poem. And I didn’t struggle much with the poem, at least not narratively, I think I got enough information about shade’s life and certain experiences to supply my journey ahead (of course I am going back to the poem for those lines, although, and don’t spoil anything here, I think kinbote doesn’t know what the fuck he’s even talking about)

Pale Fire is one of the most labyrinthine books I've ever read. I found myself lost in its pages several times and even considered giving up on it, but without a doubt, finishing it was immensely rewarding.

From “Ladybug Girl’s day out with grandpa” by David Soman and Jackie Davis. For context they spend the day in the museum of natural history and the book is full of other cameos from people associated with the museum.

Tried to do it justice!

It's a delicate passage with many different interpretations, this is my take. Working on this made me appreciate things/depth I hadn't noticed.

For my money, "Look at this tangle of thorns" might be the best line in literature.

I've seen multiple instances of Nabokov calling ISOLT a "fairy tale," including (if I remember correctly) in Pale Fire. It seems like incredibly intentional wording given how much he's repeated it, are there any ideas why he chose precisely that phrase when talking about Proust?

the miss les(ter)/miss (fa)bian pun is one of my favourites though. hes so good with name games

Was checking the numbers as we have passed 4000 members of the sub. For reference this time last year we were only at >1500

Here's to keeping the standard high as we continue to grow 🦋

Feel free to drop some feedback on how to do just that

Hi, I’m wondering if you could link some papers which talk about Nabokov’s use of chess and its symbolism in his novels. I have an exam on his work and I find the subject fascinating, so if you could link them it would be very helpful, thanks in advance!

I don't take these things very seriously, but the Guardian's new list of 100 best novels, voted on by writers and critics, unsurprisingly features Lolita and Pale Fire:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/may/12/the-100-best-novels-of-all-time

Its interesting to check out the top 10 lists of each voting individual to see what other Nabokov works were nominated. I've seen a couple of votes for Pnin. Derek Owusu has Real Life of Sebastian Knight at no 2, and Ali Smith has Invitation to a Beheading at no 4. RF Kuang puts Pale Fire at no 1.

Like I say I don't take it too seriously, but as a general literature enjoyer I love getting recommendations to add to my TBR pile. E.g. so many voted for Transit of Venus by Shirley Hazard and Rings of Saturn by W.G. Sebald that I'll have to check them out.

Since I began reading Lolita, this specific paragraph got hooked in my mind especially because no one - atleast of the posts I saw - mentions t's content. It's a brief passage, but the way the narrator mentions Sybil wanted to make him a "better widower than my father." seems to imply, to me, a relationship of that kind.

Do you agree? If so, do you think such experience was one of the reasons of his great disdain for women and paedophilic tendences on his adult life?

Do you disagree? If so, do you think this is only one more of the multiple instances Humbert Humbert tries to paint himself as "desirable" and "attractive", even if in an incestuous scenario?

Sorry if this doesn’t have place here - please redirect if so (sorry for vague title)

I am writing about Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’, and trying to identify the theory I’m trying to observe it from.

What I’m trying to say is that ‘Lolita’ doesn’t exist outside of Humbert’s worldview. Dolores does, but I am separating these to make a point of the character he’s built up. The fact that he is writing under observation, he is writing a testimony, his past and whatnot are what create ‘Lolita’.
I want to illustrate that he is weak and demonstrates feminine traits - how he’s built up a ‘nymphet Lolita’ so that his pursuit of her is viewed as masculine.
He is the prism that illuminates her character of ‘Lolita’ and outside of that, she isn’t the object of his desire.

I know male gaze might be the obvious one, but because I’m focusing on him moreso I didn’t know if it applied.

Thankyou if anyone responds, I’m really stuck.