I have not read Nabokov's translation of Eugene Onegin, but this piece led me to wonder if he was an inspiration for Stanley Lombardo's translation of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are stark departures from previous translations that eschew meter in favor of clarity and meaning.
(As a side note, those translations are fantastic, and I highly recommend them.)
I've read it and own the two-volume paperback version (someone made the mistake of asking me what I wanted for Christmas a few years ago).
The actual poem left me completely cold (and it's the only version I've ever read). The footnotes and everything else are fascinating. Everything in Nabokov's own voice is always, and everywhere, a joy to read. He was, as he tried to explain, creating a reference work, an aid to scholars and students, not a translation to "enjoy". You turn to it to find out what Pushkin wrote in his poem, rendered into English, as accurately as possible. Wilson just failed to understand the purpose of this work and his criticisms were irrelevant.
I'm interested in people's opinions of the Lombardo translations. Looking for a version of the Illiad to read.
Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense, and that's definitely not what Lombardo did with his Iliad. Lombardo stresses clear and accurate intention rendered into English. He retains a verse form, but it's blank verse. It's very much a spirit of the verse translation over the letter. For example, he'll drop epithets here and there, assuming you don't need to know for the thirtieth time that Achilles is the son of Peleus, but he doesn't drop all of them so that you get to see them. It is by no means perfect, but I've read multiple translations (Pope, Fitzgerald, Fagles). The Pope is kind of wonderful for what it is, but it's dated and extremely loose in order to fit his verse form, and I would not recommend it as a first translation. I do recommend the Lombardo as a first translation. It's worth noting that no translation truly does justice to the original language, but I don't think that possible or even necessary.
That's the part I don't understand about their feud. (I haven't read the translation, just reviews of Beam's book.) It seemed clear that Nabokov's translation aims at a different purpose than more "readable" translations, and there is a valid place for both approaches.
(As a side note, those translations are fantastic, and I highly recommend them.)