Subject
CK's response to JF which nobody but he will read
From
Date
Body
Dear Jerry,
I'm not sure I can address every objection you raised, but I'll have a go.
> A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's a fairy baby
stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human baby they want.
The Webster's 3rd does give this meaning (a being given to change, a
turncoat - - i.e., the literal meaning of versipel) as the first definition,
and the replaced child as the second. So we are both right on this one.
Hence he whimsically says one object has turned into another, and just as
whimsically calls it a shapechanger; since it's with him all the time as he
writes, he calls it his muse, which brings in a pun on the /verse/ he's
writing.
So, you think Shade's muse is his simple absent-mindedness? Interesting
idea, but distinctly odd.
(A versipel is by no means necessarily evil or demonic, by the way.
Yes, I agree with you. Jansy and I had an interesting discussion about muses
off the List and we agreed that muses seem to usually be ethically ambiguous
beings.
And the versipel fits with the theme of metamorphosis, as Jansy mentioned,
in particular with Botkin's
metamorphosis into Kinbote. I'd see that more as a sign from Nabokov than
from Shade.
Yes, I agree, only I go farther and see Shade metamorph into Kinbote. What
did you make of VN's calling Hyde Dr. Jekyll's parasite? Coincidence?
Speaking of Botkin, one of the strongest arguments against the G-K-S theory
is that Nabokov endorsed the Botkin-Kinbote theory, according to Boyd's
biography. And any references to Jekyll and Hyde fit the Botkin theory as
well as yours.
Citation please?
I've heard nothing about one personality claiming to talk to another, or
inventing a story for another (Gradus), or struggling for control but
describing it as a conversation or banging the garbage cans, or building an
astonishingly well-developed delusional country, or making himself the butt
of Pooterish irony, or inventing a conversation with someone who calls him
insane, or inventing a red-herring identity for himself (Botkin), or being
released by a stroke. Would Nabokov have thought such things happen?
You are absolutely right - - with the two important exceptions of struggling
for control - - they do do that almost always, and spying on each other - -
they do that too, or more usually as in Pale Fire, the alternate personality
spies on the primary one. The (multiple) personalities I have read about are
comparatively sane, even boring. No Zemblas, no strokes either. But my
theory is that the antecedants to PF are a combination of the scientific
and the literary (Zenda, Dorian Gray, J&H), that this is a novel after all,
so the fantastic aspect of Kinbote is definitely a Nabokovian invention.
Also the idea that strokes can trigger a metamorphosis is purely VN's
invention, so far as I'm aware.
but /every/ interaction between Kinbote and Shade can't have happened as
stated. Same with every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil.
I'll almost agree with you. Actually, the conversations between Kinbote and
Shade may very well take place in the simple manner that people often talk
and muse to themselves, it's just a little more elaborate. What can not take
place is that Kinbote reach over and touch Shade, or that he and the other
professors discuss the King of Zembla. This is a necessary weakness either
in my theory &/or in VN's riddle. I see it as the similar to the problem RLS
had with the clumsy (VN's word, I think) cocktail-transforming device. VN's
lecture on J & H is very useful to understanding how aware VN was of the
problems the author of such a tale sets himself.
Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for conversation--couldn't
happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't happen.
But these are Kinbote's later memories, or claims of what happened. He is
hiding, or perhaps doesn't know, what really happened. I'm not sure I see
why you see this as problematic.
Shade lifts his hand in greeting--couldn't have happened (there's no one to
greet).
By the way, if you re-read the first humorous encounter between Shade &
Sybil (in car) and Kinbote (on snowy street), you'll see that VN almost has
to give the game away. As far and Shade & Sybil are concerned Kinbote
doesn't exist - - literally.
With interest in your observations but no belief in your theory,
I do sometimes wish VN would come back from the dead and set you all
straight, but that isn't going to happen, is it (sigh)?
Carolyn
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
I'm not sure I can address every objection you raised, but I'll have a go.
> A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's a fairy baby
stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human baby they want.
The Webster's 3rd does give this meaning (a being given to change, a
turncoat - - i.e., the literal meaning of versipel) as the first definition,
and the replaced child as the second. So we are both right on this one.
Hence he whimsically says one object has turned into another, and just as
whimsically calls it a shapechanger; since it's with him all the time as he
writes, he calls it his muse, which brings in a pun on the /verse/ he's
writing.
So, you think Shade's muse is his simple absent-mindedness? Interesting
idea, but distinctly odd.
(A versipel is by no means necessarily evil or demonic, by the way.
Yes, I agree with you. Jansy and I had an interesting discussion about muses
off the List and we agreed that muses seem to usually be ethically ambiguous
beings.
And the versipel fits with the theme of metamorphosis, as Jansy mentioned,
in particular with Botkin's
metamorphosis into Kinbote. I'd see that more as a sign from Nabokov than
from Shade.
Yes, I agree, only I go farther and see Shade metamorph into Kinbote. What
did you make of VN's calling Hyde Dr. Jekyll's parasite? Coincidence?
Speaking of Botkin, one of the strongest arguments against the G-K-S theory
is that Nabokov endorsed the Botkin-Kinbote theory, according to Boyd's
biography. And any references to Jekyll and Hyde fit the Botkin theory as
well as yours.
Citation please?
I've heard nothing about one personality claiming to talk to another, or
inventing a story for another (Gradus), or struggling for control but
describing it as a conversation or banging the garbage cans, or building an
astonishingly well-developed delusional country, or making himself the butt
of Pooterish irony, or inventing a conversation with someone who calls him
insane, or inventing a red-herring identity for himself (Botkin), or being
released by a stroke. Would Nabokov have thought such things happen?
You are absolutely right - - with the two important exceptions of struggling
for control - - they do do that almost always, and spying on each other - -
they do that too, or more usually as in Pale Fire, the alternate personality
spies on the primary one. The (multiple) personalities I have read about are
comparatively sane, even boring. No Zemblas, no strokes either. But my
theory is that the antecedants to PF are a combination of the scientific
and the literary (Zenda, Dorian Gray, J&H), that this is a novel after all,
so the fantastic aspect of Kinbote is definitely a Nabokovian invention.
Also the idea that strokes can trigger a metamorphosis is purely VN's
invention, so far as I'm aware.
but /every/ interaction between Kinbote and Shade can't have happened as
stated. Same with every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil.
I'll almost agree with you. Actually, the conversations between Kinbote and
Shade may very well take place in the simple manner that people often talk
and muse to themselves, it's just a little more elaborate. What can not take
place is that Kinbote reach over and touch Shade, or that he and the other
professors discuss the King of Zembla. This is a necessary weakness either
in my theory &/or in VN's riddle. I see it as the similar to the problem RLS
had with the clumsy (VN's word, I think) cocktail-transforming device. VN's
lecture on J & H is very useful to understanding how aware VN was of the
problems the author of such a tale sets himself.
Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for conversation--couldn't
happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't happen.
But these are Kinbote's later memories, or claims of what happened. He is
hiding, or perhaps doesn't know, what really happened. I'm not sure I see
why you see this as problematic.
Shade lifts his hand in greeting--couldn't have happened (there's no one to
greet).
By the way, if you re-read the first humorous encounter between Shade &
Sybil (in car) and Kinbote (on snowy street), you'll see that VN almost has
to give the game away. As far and Shade & Sybil are concerned Kinbote
doesn't exist - - literally.
With interest in your observations but no belief in your theory,
I do sometimes wish VN would come back from the dead and set you all
straight, but that isn't going to happen, is it (sigh)?
Carolyn
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm