Lump on. That is what the Football Association would like you to believe Kieran Trippier told his friends shortly before his move to Atletico Madrid. It implies a ring, a sting and big, big rewards, hence his 10-week ban. It was nothing of the sort.
Transcripts reveal a more earthbound reality. The circle trying to win a few quid, the player trying to be a pal. One of Trippier's mates asks if he should 'lump on' — the first time the phrase is used — and gets the reply: 'Can do mate.' Later, pressed, Trippier adopts the same turn of phrase. 'Lump on if you want mate,' he advises. It is the tamest of endorsements.
Yet, as the friends swiftly discover, lumping on really isn't an option. Bookmakers don't want anyone lumping on a transfer bet because the only person who would enter such an unpredictable market with cash and confidence is in the know. Nobody is betting big money on a hunch.
So it's a win-win. If the move collapses the bookmakers keep the cash, and if it delivers they have the safety net of football's governing body to do their dirty work, if betting patterns indicate prior knowledge. So one of Trippier's friends had his stake 'massively restricted', and another got £300 on, but only at odds of 1-6, giving bookmakers a liability of £50 and a red flashing light.
Some of the other bets were laughable: £8.75 at 1-2, liability £4.37; £20 at 1-2, liability £10; £20 at 1-3, liability £6.66; £25 at 8-13, liability £15.38. The biggest bets were undermined by short odds: £100 at 5-6, liability £83.33; £120 at 5-6, liability £100. Another bet of £300 at 4-11 gave the winner £109.09, while £80.34 was wagered at 3-10, a return of £24.10.
The significant numbers here are not being made off book-makers. 'Levy just wants £500,000 more,' Trippier told his acolytes at one stage. According to FA evidence, the fee was finally agreed with Tottenham for £25m, which rather puts that £4.37 into perspective, or even the big hit, £109.09. As does the £482m Denise Coates was paid as chief executive of Bet365 across two years between 2017 and 2019.
And, yes, it's the principle that counts, not the profit. Trippier should not have been sharing privileged information with people he must have reasonably assumed were using it for gambling purposes.
Yet, why, exactly? This isn't a match. He isn't affecting the outcome and therefore the integrity of a competition. Bookmakers have chosen to make a market on his life, and in doing so have placed him in jeopardy.
Who makes significant career decisions without discussing it with family or friends, without taking counsel, or offering progress reports? Trippier did not ask for this book to be opened, and receives no revenue from it. Maybe that is what should change.
The only way these bans and fines would be fair is if book-makers had to seek permission from the individuals involved, who would receive a cut of the revenue as part of their image rights. Then, if a player was found to be manipulating the market, or offering the inside track, it would be fraud and he could be penalised accordingly.
This is just the FA acting as bookies' muscle. If they didn't pursue cases against players such as Trippier and Daniel Sturridge, the gambling houses would soon tire of losing and the problem would go away. It is the FA that facilitates this by acting as enforcer — as if the grubby charade is any of their business.
This is now being tested. Atletico Madrid have challenged the ban which is suspended, pending appeal. The club will go to FIFA and then the Court of Arbitration for Sport if unsuccessful.
Their case is simple. They bought a player. They had nothing to do with a betting scandal that took place when he was still under contract to Spurs, or a punishment handed down from a different country. Had Trippier served it as administered, he would have missed 13 Atletico matches including the home Champions League fixture with Chelsea. As he would not even be allowed inside the training ground before March 1 — or to attend a game — his place in the Madrid derby scheduled for March 7 would have been in jeopardy, too.
And this is a huge season for Atletico. They top the table with a two-point lead and games in hand on Spain's big two. They could win LaLiga for only the second time since 1996 — and Trippier is their first-choice right back.
Certainly, it did not escape Atletico's attention that his ban did not impinge on any international fixtures, leaving the FA and English football unscathed. Atletico protested and FIFA listened. It could mean, if the punishment is delayed but upheld, that Trippier misses the European Championship. That leaked this week as if the FA were trying to put the frighteners on.
Yet, so what? It's their trumped-up ban. Given the friend-of-the-right-back's-cousin's-best-mate's-cleaning-lady source of transfer gossip is such a familiar trope, how preposterous is it that the FA make passing information a crime? Equally, why are they prioritising protecting the sanctity of an artificial betting market created to separate mugs from their money?
Unless some mug knows somebody, of course. Then, they'll refuse to pay, turn the source over to the beaks, and the FA will prosecute as if they've cracked the crime of the century. Strange, isn't it, that they're so fascinated by £4.37 — but rarely with the part where the real money gets made?
link if you want give click to the dm submitted by INTERVIEWER: Good morning. Let me ask forty-odd questions.
NABOKOV: Good morning. I am ready.
INTERVIEWER: Yoursense of the immorality of the relationship between Humbert Humbert and Lolita is very strong. In Hollywood and NewYork, however,relationships are frequent between men offorty andgirls very little older than Lolita. They marry—to no particular public outrage; rather, public cooing.
NABOKOV: No,it is not my sense of the immorality of the Humbert Humbert-Lolita relationship that is strong; it is Humbert’s sense. He cares, I do not. J do not give a damnfor public morals, in America or elsewhere. And, anyway, cases of men in their forties marryinggirls in their teens or early twenties have no bearing on Lolita whatever. Humbert was fondof “‘ittle girls”—not simply “younggirls.” Nymphetsare girl-children, not starlets and “‘sex kittens.” Lolita was twelve, not eighteen when Humbert met her. You may rememberthat by the timesheis fourteen, he refers to her as his “aging mistress.”
INTERVIEWER: Onecritic (Pryce-Jones) has said about you that “his feelingsare like no oneelse’s.”” Does this make sense to you?Or does it mean that you know your feelings better than others knowtheirs? Or that you have discovered yourself at other levels?Or simply that your history is unique?
NABOKOV: I do notrecall that article; but if a critic makes such a statement, it must surely mean that he hasexplored thefeelings of literally millions of people, in at least three countries, before reaching his conclusion. If so, I am a rare fowl indeed.If, on the other hand, he has merely limited himself to quizzing members of his family or club, his statement cannot be discussedseriously.
INTERVIEWER: Anothercritic has written that your “worlds are static. They may becometense with obsession, but they do not break apart like the worlds of everydayreality.”” Do you agree? Isthere a static quality in your view of things?
NABOKOV: Whose “reality”? “Everyday” where? Let me suggest that the very term “everyday reality” is utterly static since it presupposesa situation that is permanently observable, essentially objective, and universally known. I suspect you have invented that expert on “everydayreality.” Neither exists.
INTERVIEWER: He does (names him). A third critic has said that you “diminish” your characters “to the point where they become ciphers in a cosmic farce.” I disagree; Humbert, while comic, retains a touching and insistent quality—that of the spoiled artist.
NABOKOV: I would put it differently: Humbert Humbertis a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear “touching.” That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl. Besides, how can I “diminish” to the level of ciphers, et cetera, characters that I have invented myself? One can “‘diminish” a biographee, but not an eidolon.
INTERVIEWER: E.. M. Forster speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the courseof his novels. Has this ever been a problem for you, or are you in complete command?
NABOKOV: My knowledge of Mr. Forster’s works is limited to one novel, which dislike; and anyway, it was not he whofathered thattrite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand;it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves.
INTERVIEWER: Clarence Brown of Princeton has pointed out striking similarities in your work. Herefers to you as “extremely repetitious” and that in wildly different ways you are in essence saying the same thing. He speaks of fate being the “muse of Nabokov.” Are you consciously aware of “repeating yourself,” or to put it another way, that you strive for a conscious unity to your shelf of books?
NABOKOV: I do not think I have seen Clarence Brown’sessay, but he may have something there. Derivative writers seem versatile because they imitate many others, past and present. Artistic originality has only its own self to copy.
INTERVIEWER: Do you thinkliterary criticism is at all purposeful? Either in general, or specifically about your own books? Is it ever instructive?
NABOKOV: The purposeofa critique is to say something about a book the critic has or has not read. Criticism can be instructive in the sense that it gives readers, including the authorof the book, some information about thecritic’s intelligence, or honesty, or both.
INTERVIEWER: Andthe function of the editor? Has one ever had literary advice to offer?
NABOKOV: By “editor” I suppose you mean_proofreader. Amongthese I have known limpid creatures of limitless tact and tenderness who would discuss with me a semicolon asif it were a point of honor—which, indeed, a point of art often is. But I have also comeacross a few pompous avuncular brutes who would attemptto “make suggestions” which I countered with a thunderous “‘stet!”’
INTERVIEWER: Are you a lepidopterist, stalking your victims? If so, doesn’t your laughter startle them?
NABOKOV: Onthe contrary, it lulls them into the state of torpid security which an insect experiences when mimicking a dead leaf. Though by no meansan avid reader of reviews dealing with my ownstuff, I happen to rememberthe essay by a young lady who attempted to find entomological symbols in my fiction. The essay might have been amusing had she known something about Lepidoptera. Alas, she revealed complete ignorance, and the muddle of terms she employed proved to be only jarring and absurd.
INTERVIEWER: How would you define youralienation from the so-called White Russian refugees?
NABOKOV: Well, historically I am a “White Russian” myself since all Russians wholeft Russia as my family did in thefirst years of the Bolshevist tyranny because of their opposition to it were and remained White Russians in the large sense. But these refugees were split into as many social fractions and political factions as wasthe entire nation before the Bolshevist coup. I do not mix with “black-hundred” White Russians and do not mix with the so-called ‘“‘bolshevizans,” that is “pinks.”” On the other hand, I have friends among intellectual Constitutional Monarchists as well as amongintellectual Social Revolutionaries. My father was an old-fashioned liberal, and I do not mind being labeled an old-fashioned liberal, too.
INTERVIEWER: How would you define youralienation from present-day Russia? __
NABOKOV: As a deep distrust of the phony thaw now advertised. As a constant awareness of unredeemable iniquities. As a complete indifference to all that moves a patriotic Sovetski man of today. As the keen satisfaction of having discernedasearly as 1918 (nineteen eighteen) the meshchantsvo (petty bourgeois smugness, Philistine essence) of Leninism.
INTERVIEWER: How do you now regard the poets Blok and Mandelshtam and others whowerewriting in the days before you left Russia?
NABOKOV: I read them in my boyhood, more than a half century ago. Ever since that time I have remainedpassionately fond of Blok’s lyrics. His long pieces are weak, and the famous The Twelve is dreadful, self-consciously couched in a phony “primitive” tone, with a pink cardboard Jesus Christ glued on at the end. As to Mandelshtam,I also knew him by heart, but he gave me a less fervent pleasure. Today, through the prism of tragic fate, his poetry seemsgreater than it actually is. I note incidentally that professors of literature still assign these two poets to different schools. There is only one school: that of talent.
INTERVIEWER: I know your work has been read andis attacked in the Soviet Union. How would you feel about a Soviet edition of your work?
NABOKOV: Oh, they are welcome to my work. As a matter of fact, the Editions Victor are bringing out my Jnvitation to a Beheading in a reprintof the original Russian of 1935, and a New York publisher (Phaedra) is printing my Russian translation of Lolita. 1 am sure the Soviet Governmentwill be happy to admit officially a novel that seems to contain a prophecy of Hitler’s regime, and a novel that condemnsbitterly the American system of motels.
INTERVIEWER: Haveyouever had contact with Soviet citizens? Of what sort?
NABOKOV: I have practically no contact with them, though I did onceagree,in theearly thirties or late twenties, to meet—out of sheer curiosity—an agent from Bolshevist Russia who was trying hard to get émigré writers andartists to return to the fold. He had a double name, Lebedev something, and had written a novelette entitled Chocolate, and I thought I might have some sport with him. I asked him would I be permitted to write freely and would I be able to leave Russia if I did notlike it there. He said that I would be so busyliking it there that I would have no time to dream of going abroadagain. I would,he said, beperfectly free to choose any of the many themesSoviet Russia bountifully allows a writer to use, such as farms, factories, forests in Fakistan —oh,lots of fascinating subjects. I said farms, et cetera, bored me, and my wretched seducer soon gave up. He hadbetter luck with the composer Prokofiev.
INTERVIEWER: Do you consider yourself an American?
NABOKOV: Yes, I do. 1am as American as April in Arizona. The flora, the fauna, the air of the Western states, are my links with Asiatic and Arctic Russia. Of course, I owe too much to the Russian language and landscape to be emotionally involved in, say, American regionalliterature, or Indian dances, or pumpkin pie on a spiritual plane; but I do feel a suffusion of warm,lighthearted pride when I show mygreen U.S.A.passport at European frontiers. Crude criticism of American affairs offends and distresses me. In homepolitics I am strongly antisegregationist. In foreign policy, I am definitely on the government’s side. And when in doubt, I always follow the simple method of choosing that line of conduct which may be the most displeasing to the Reds and the Russells.
INTERVIEWER: Is there a community of which you consider yourself a part?
NABOKOV: Notreally. I can mentally collect quite a large number of individuals whom I am fondof, but they would form a very disparate and discordant group if gathered in real life, on a real island. Otherwise, I would say that I am fairly comfortable in the company of American intellectuals who have read my books
INTERVIEWER: Whatis your opinion of the academic world as a milieu for the creative writer? Could you speak specifically of the value or detriment of your teaching at Cornell?
naBoxov: A first-rate college library with a comfortable campus arounditis a fine milieu for a writer. There is, of course, the problem of educating the young. I remember how once, between terms, not at Cornell, a student broughta transistor set with him into the reading room. He managedto state that (1) he was playing “classical”? music; that (2) he was doing it “softly”; and that (3) “there were not many readers around in summer.” I was there, a one-man multitude.
INTERVIEWER: Would you describe yourrelationship with the contemporary literary community? With Edmund Wilson, Mary McCarthy, your magazine editors and book publishers?
NABOKOV: The only time | ever collaborated with any writer was when I translated with Edmund Wilson Pushkin’s Mozart and Salieri for the New Republic twenty-five years ago, a rather - paradoxical recollection in view of his making such a fool of himself last year when he had the audacity of questioning my understanding of Fugene Onegin. Mary McCarthy, on the other hand, has been very kind to me recently in the same New Republic, although I do think she added quite a bit of her own angelica to the pale fire of Kinbote’s plum pudding. I prefer not to mention here myrelationship with Girodias, but I have answered in Evergreen his scurvy article in the Olympia anthology. Otherwise,I am on excellent terms with all my publishers. My warm friendship with Catharine White and Bill Maxwell of The New Yorker is something the most arrogant author cannot evoke without gratitude and delight.
INTERVIEWER: Could you say something of your work habits? Do you write to a preplanned chart? Do you jump from one section to another, or do you move from the beginning through to the end?
NABOKOV: The pattern of the thing precedesthe thing.I fill in the gaps of the crossword at any spot I happen to choose. These bits I write on index cards until the novel is done. My schedule is flexible, but I am rather particular about my instruments:lined Bristol cards and well sharpened, not too hard, pencils capped with erasers. |
INTERVIEWER: Is there a particular picture of the world which you wish to develop? The past is very present for you, even in a novel of the “future,” such as Bend Sinister. Are you a “nostalgist’? In what time would you prefer to live?
NABOKOV: In the coming days of silent planes and graceful aircycles, and cloudless silvery skies, and a universal system of padded undergroundroadsto which trucksshall be relegated like Morlocks. As to the past, I would not mind retrieving from various corners of spacetime certain lost comforts, such as baggy trousers and long, deep bathtubs.
INTERVIEWER: You know, you do not have to answerall my Kinbote-like questions.
NABOKOV: It would never do to start skipping the tricky ones. Let us continue.
INTERVIEWER: Besides writing novels, what do you, or would you, like most to do?
NABOKOV: Oh, hunting butterflies, of course, and studying them. Thepleasures and rewardsofliterary inspiration are nothing beside the rapture of discovering a new organ under the microscope or an undescribed species on a mountainside in Iran or Peru. It is not improbable that had there been no revolution in Russia, I would have devoted myself entirely to lepidopterology and never written any novels at all.
INTERVIEWER: Whatis most characteristic of poshlust in contemporary writing? Are there temptations for you in the sin of poshlust? Have you everfallen?
NABoKov: “Poshlust,” or in a better transliteration poshlost, has many nuances, and evidently I have not described them clearly enough in mylittle book on Gogol, if you think one can ask anybody if he is tempted by poshlost. Corny trash, vulgar clichés, Philistinism in all its phases, imitations of imitations, bogus profundities, crude, moronic, and dishonest pseudo-literature—these are obvious examples. Now, if we want to pin down poshlost in contemporary writing, we mustlookfor it in Freudian symbolism, moth-eaten mythologies, social comment, humanistic messages, political allegories, overconcern with class or race, and the journalistic generalities we all know. Poshlost speaks in such concepts as “Americais no better than Russia” or “Weall share in Germany’s guilt.” The flowers of poshlost bloom in such phrases and terms as “the momentoftruth,” “charisma,” “existential” (used seriously), “dialogue’’ (as applied to political talks between nations), and “vocabulary” (as applied to a dauber). Listing in one breath Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Vietnam is seditious poshlost. Belonging to a very select club (which sports one Jewish name—thatofthe treasurer) is genteel poshlost. Hack reviews are frequently poshlost, but it also lurks in certain highbrow essays. Poshlost calls Mr. Blank a great poet and Mr. Bluff a great novelist. One of poshlost’s favorite breeding places has always been the Art Exhibition; there it is produced by so-called sculptors working with the tools of wreckers, building crankshaft cretins of stainless steel, zen stereos, polystyrene stinkbirds, objects trouvés in latrines, cannon balls, canned balls. There we admire the gabinetti wall patterns of so-called abstract artists, Freudian surrealism, roric smudges, and Rorschach blots—all of it as corny in its own right as the academic ‘“‘September Morns” and “Florentine Flowergirls” of half a century ago. Thelist is long, and, of course, everybody has his béte noire, his black pet, in the series. Mine is that airline ad: the snack served by an obsequious wench to a young couple—sheeyeing ecstatically the cucumber canapé, he admiring wistfully the hostess. And, of coursé, Death in Venice. You see the range.
INTERVIEWER: Are there contemporary writers you follow with great pleasure?
NABOKOV: There are several such writers, but I shall not name them. Anonymouspleasure hurts nobody.
INTERVIEWER: Do you follow some with great pain?
NABOKOV: No. Manyaccepted authors simply do not exist for me. Their names are engraved on emptygraves, their books are dummies, they are complete nonentities insofar as my taste in reading is concerned. Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain whenI see blandly acceptedas “great literature’ by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley’s copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake. I note he has replaced Dr. Schweitzer in some homes.
INTERVIEWER: As an admirer of Borges and Joyce you seem to share their pleasure in teasing the reader with tricks and puns and
puzzles. What do you think the relationship should be between reader and author?
NABOKOV:I do not recollect any puns in Borges, but then I read him onlyin translation. Anyway, his delicatelittle tales and miniature Minotaurs have nothing in commonwith Joyce’s great machines. Nor do I find manypuzzles in that mostlucid of novels, Ulysses. On the other hand, I detest Punningans Wake in which a cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy,allegory.
INTERVIEWER: What have you learned from Joyce?
NABOKOV: Nothing.
INTERVIEWER: Oh, come.
NABOKOV: James Joyce has not influenced me in any manner whatsoever. Myfirst brief contact with Ulysses was around 1920 at Cambridge University, when a friend, Peter Mrozovski, who had brought a copy from Paris, chanced to read to me, as he stomped up and down mydigs, one or two spicy passages from Molly’s monologue, which, entre nous soit dit, is the weakest chapter in the book. Only fifteen years later, when I was already well formedas a writer and reluctantto learn or unlearn anything, I read Ulysses andliked it enormously. I am indifferent to Finnegans Wake as I am toall regional literature written in dialect— even if it be the dialect of genius. |
INTERVIEWER: Aren’t you doing a book about James Joyce?
NABOKOV: But not only about him. What I intend to do is publish a number of twenty-page essays on several works— Ulysses, Madame Bovary, Kafka’s Transformation, Don Quixote, and others—all based on my Cornell and Harvard lectures. I rememberwith delight tearing apart Don Quixote, a cruel and crude old book, before six hundred students in Memorial Hall,
much to the horror and embarrassment of some of my more conservative colleagues.
INTERVIEWER: What about other influences? Pushkin?
NABOKOV: In a way—no morethan,say, Tolstoy or Turgenev were influenced by the pride and purity of Pushkin’sart.
INTERVIEWER: Gogol?
NABOKOV: I was careful not to learn anything from him. As a teacher, he is dubious and dangerous. At his worst, as in his Ukranian stuff, he is a worthless writer; at his best, he is incomparable and inimitable.
INTERVIEWER: Anyoneelse?
NABOoKOv: H. G. Wells, a great artist, was my favorite writer when I was a boy. The Passionate Friends, Ann Veronica, The Time Machine, The Country of the Blind, all these stories are far better than anything Bennett, or Conrador, in fact, any of Wells’ contemporaries could produce. His sociological cogitations can be safely ignored, of course, but his romances and fantasias are superb. There was an awful momentat dinnerin our St. Petersburg house one night when Zinaida Vengerov,his translator, informed Wells, with a toss of her head: ““You know, my favorite work of yours is The Lost World.” “She means the war the Martians lost,” said my father quickly.
INTERVIEWER: Did you learn from your students at Cornell? Wasthe experience purely a financial one? Did teaching teach you anything valuable?
NABOKOV: My method of teaching precluded genuine contact with mystudents. At best, they regurgitated a few bits of my brain during examinations. Everylecture I delivered had beencarefully, lovingly handwritten and typed out, and I leisurely read it out in class, sometimes stopping to rewrite a sentence and sometimes repeating a paragraph—a mnemonic prod which, however,seldom provoked any changein the rhythm of wrists taking it down. I welcomed the few shorthand experts in my audience, hoping they would communicate the information theystored to their less fortunate comrades. Vainly I tried to replace my appearances at the lectern by taped records to be played overthe college radio. On the other hand, I deeply enjoyed the chuckle of appreciation in this or that warm spotof thelecture hall at this or that point of my lecture. My best reward comes from those former students of mine who,ten orfifteen years later, write to me to say that they now understand what I wanted of them when I taught them to visualize Emma Bovary’s mistranslated hairdo or the arrangement of roomsin the Samsa household or the two homosexuals in Anna Karenina. | do not knowif I learned anything from teaching, but I know I amassed an invaluable amountof exciting information in analyzing a dozen novels for my students. Mysalary as you happen to know was not exactly a princely one.
INTERVIEWER: Is there anything you would care to say about the collaboration your wife has given you?
NABOKOV: Shepresided as adviser and judge over the making of my first fiction in the early twenties. I have read to her all my stories and novels at least twice; and she has reread them all when typing them andcorrecting proofs and checking translations into several languages. One day in 1950,at Ithaca, New York, she was responsible for stopping meand urging delay and second thoughts as, beset with technical difficulties and doubts, I was carrying the first chapters of Lolita to the garden incinerator.
INTERVIEWER: Whatis yourrelation to thetranslations of your books?
NABOKOV: In the case of languages my wife and I know or can read—English, Russian, French, and to a certain extent German and Italian—thesystem is a strict checking of every sentence. In the case of Japanese or Turkish versions, I try not to imagine the
disasters that probably bespatter every page.
INTERVIEWER: What are your plans for future work?
NABOKOV: [| am writing a new novel, but of this I cannot speak. Anotherproject I have been nursing for some timeis the publication of the complete screenplay of Lolita that I made for Kubrick. Although there are just enough borrowings from it in his version to justify my legal position as authorof the script, the film is only a blurred skimpy glimpse of the marvelouspicture I imagined and set down scene by scene during the six months I worked in a Los Angelesvilla. I do not wish to imply that Kubrick’s film is mediocre; in its own right, it is first-rate, but it is not what I wrote. A tinge of poshlost is often given by the cinemato the novel it distorts and coarsensin its crooked glass. Kubrick, I think, avoided this fault in his version, but I shall never understand why he did not follow mydirections and
dreams.It is a great pity; but at least I shall be able to have people read my Lolita playin its original form.
INTERVIEWER: If you had the choice of one and only one book by which you would be remembered, which one would it be?
NABOKOV: The one I am writing or rather dreamingof writing. Actually, I shall be remembered by Lolita and my work on Eugene Onegin.
INTERVIEWER: Doyou feel you have any conspicuousorsecret flaw as a writer?
NABOKOV: Theabsenceof a natural vocabulary. An odd thing to confess, but true. Of the two instruments in mypossession, one —my native tongue—I can no longer use, and this not only because I lack a Russian audience, but also because the excitement of verbal adventure in the Russian medium has faded away gradually after I turned to English in 1940. My English, this second instrument I have always had, is howevera stifhsh, artificial thing, which may beall right for describing a sunset or an insect, but which cannot conceal poverty of syntax and paucity of domestic diction when I need the shortest road between warehouse and shop. An old Rolls Royce is not always preferable to a plain jeep.
INTERVIEWER: What do you think about the contemporary - competitive ranking of writers?
NABOKOV: Yes, I have noticed that in this respect our professional book reviewers are veritable bookmakers. Who’s in, who’s out, and where are the snowsof yesteryear. All very amusing. I am a little sorry to be left out. Nobody can decide if I am a middle-aged American writer or an old Russian writer—or an ageless international freak.
INTERVIEWER: Whatis your great regret in your career?
NABOKOV: That I did not comeearlier to America. I would have liked to have lived in New York in the thirties. Had my Russian novels been translated then, they might have provided a shock and a lesson for pro-Soviet enthusiasts.
INTERVIEWER: Aretheresignificant disadvantages to your present fame?
NABOKOV: Lolita is famous, not I. I am an obscure, doubly obscure, novelist with an unpronounceable name.
-HERBERT GOLD
submitted by Each online bookmaker will have different rules around the free bet club or loyalty program they offer. It is essential to read and understand them fully, although the reason why free bet clubs are so popular is that they are far more simple to understand than free bet incentives and new customer bonuses. Top 10 Online Bookmakers 2021 (Ge-update februari 2021) Als je op zoek bent naar de beste betrouwbare online bookmakers dan ben je bij Bookiez.net aan het juiste adres. We hebben de beste bookmaker(s) voor je uitgezocht en objectief gereviewed. Ook bij de Circus bookmaker kun je overigens profiteren van een aantal leuke promoties. De bovengenoemde Circus VIP-club is niet alleen voor casinogasten, maar ook voor wie bij Circus wed op sport. Daarnaast kun je cash-prijzen winnen met geselecteerde weddenschappen en kun jij je winsten verhogen door combinatieweddenschappen af te sluiten. Bookmaker VIP Clubs are the new in-thing, which you can gain access to from betting large amounts of money. They are for elite individuals, and joining such clubs can earn you a fortune. They are for ‘serious’ customers, who bets anywhere from £250 on a bet upto £10,000! Букмекерская контора - ставки на спорт и киберспорт. Мы принимаем онлайн ставки на футбол, теннис, баскетбол, хоккей, волейбол и прочие виды спорта. Мы рады приветствовать вас на нашем сайте круглосуточно! Bookmaker is de Engelse uitdrukking voor een bedrijf of persoon die het mogelijk maakt om te wedden op de uitslag van een wedstrijd, ... welkomstbonus bieden de online bookmakers ook vaak promoties aan om loyale spelers te belonen door middel van een VIP Club waar hoe meer je speelt hoe betere bonussen je ontvangt. “A bookmaker, bookie, or turf ... Club Brugge, KAA Gent en Royal Antwerp. De beste online voetbal bookmakers kun je natuurlijk ook gokken op de internationale competities zoals de Europa League en de Champions League en op de avonturen van de Belgische clubs op internationaal niveau. ... BookMaker Sportsbook offers the best Sports LIVE Betting odds on NFL, College football, NBA, MLB, horse racing and more. Join now and get a 50% deposit bonus, up to $300 at Bookmaker.eu, the leader in online sports betting. Om jou te helpen bij het vinden van een passende legale sportsbook rangschikten wij speciaal voor jou de beste bookmakers van Nederland (met licentie) 2021. Elk van deze voetbal gokken sites werden beoordeeld op basis van diverse punten die we naast het Sportsbook logo nog extra toelichten.
Quel est le meilleur bookmaker français pour parier? Où trouve t-on les meilleurs paris sportifs? On répond à la question d'un membre du Club Privé dans cette vidéo! Pour recevoir notre ... Bets on international tournaments are now found in almost every bookmaker. They are tournaments for computer games, such as Dota, World of Tanks, Counter Strike, on which you can make real bets ... Every day I watch Horse Racing while trading the exchanges. It's always been there, although recently it's started to grate on me more and more. The media co... John McCririck & Geoff Banks talk candidly about major bookmakers not taking big horse bets. As more and more companies become focused on FOBT's and concentr... Please note: All project designs, names and concepts I share for the benefit of my customers are exclusive of Nik the Booksmith and should not be reproduced, mimicked or duplicated in any way, for ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Le Club de paris sportifs !! -Vous voulez recevoir des analyses et pronostics gratuits de nos experts ? ... Calcul de la Marge du Bookmaker et du Taux de Retour pour le Parieur - Duration: 7:24 ...