Subject
Re: Transparent Things Group Reading: Chapter I (fwd)
From
Date
Body
------------------ We seem to be making the assumption that there is only
one narrator, later identified as Mr. R., but is this really the case?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think I am "hearing" at least two voices as I
read this chapter. This is most evident in the fourth paragraph:
"Hullo, person! What's the matter, don't pull me. I'm not bothering him.
Oh, all right. Hullo, person . . . (last time, in a very small voice)."
Obviously, there are two personae involved in the action of this paragraph:
the one who we've (prematurely) identified as Mr. R., who is attempting to
hail the "person," and someone else who is preventing him from doing so.
But this is not my reason for drawing attention to this paragraph. What
interests me is the parenthetical comment. Whose voice is that? The
"Hullo, person"s belong to one narrator, but the parenthetical "last
time..." appears to be a voice that is filtering the hailer (Mr. R.), and
can thus tell the reader that the hailer is hailing one "last time, in a
very small voice." To clarify, the parenthetical comment does not directly
represent speech, but rather describes the quality of that speech. So it
seems to me that there are multiple levels of narration, at least in this
paragraph.
I am also curious whether others detect variations of tone between the
paragraphs of this chapter. Is the narrator who kicks off the first
paragraph ("Hullo, person!") the same as the narrator who begins the second
paragraph ("Perhaps if the future existed, concretely and individually...")?
Jamie Olson
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Transparent Things Group Reading: Chapter I
> ------------------
> Greetings
> I'm very glad you started this....nobody ever wants to go first.
> 1. The hullo I've always thought of as not only a greating to Person
> ('doesn't hear me') but also kind of a exclamation of discovery (a la
> Sherlock Holmes...he says it in almost every story after The Sign of
Four).
> It comes from one of a group of angels/observers/narrators (I think Boyd
> has written something about that.) Why it is spelt the way it is, I don't
> know (phonetically?).
> 2. No Idea but isn't he mention in Ada as well.
> Dane
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ED. The "HULLO" marks the narrator as a non-native speaker of English
> ----------------------------------
>
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> > Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Transparent Things Group Reading: Chapter I
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:06:17 -0700
> >
> > Since no one has taken the initiative in the TT read, I offer an opening
> > thought and query.
> >
> > 1. What's with that "Hullo"? Who are the characters in Ch. I? Evidence?
> >
> > 2. The second paragraph introduces the TIME theme. Is there, BTW, a
person
> > out there conversant with Henri Bergson's ideas on TIME, who can montior
> > the theme as we read?
> >
> > 3. My own opening shot:
> > If the future existed (which it doesn't), "Persons might then
> > straddle
> > the middle stretch of the seesaw when considering this or that object."
> > This is a very neat metaphor. The two ends of the "seesaw" depict the
> > PAST & the FUTURE. The PRESENT is the fulcrum astride which the
individual
> > looks at the PAST and FUTURE from the PRESENT. The word "SEESAW"
> > encapsulates the present (or future) tense of "to see" while the "saw"
is
> > the past tense.
> > Very apt, if etymologically inaccurate. The playground object's
> > name
> > involves a reduplication of "saw" in the sense of "sawing logs" and
refers
> > to the up & down motion of the act.
> > Out of curiosity, I checked Sergey Ilyin's Russian translation in
> > the
> > SYMPOSIUM volumes. He translates "seesaw" as "kachayushchaya doska"
> > (swinging board) thus losing the semantic play which is, I suspect,
> > untranslatable. It might be entertaining to look at translations into
> > other languages to see how it is handled.
> > Note also that VN points out at the start that the imagery is not
> > entirely
> > successful since in Mr. R's view the future (one end of the board)
> > doesn't exist.
> > I suspect what VN means is that while the FUTURE may exist as an
> > abstract
> > concept, it remains vacant or unpopulated until someone arrives to sit
on
> > the far end of the seesaw.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > D. Barton Johnson
> > NABOKV-L
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht
> tp://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
one narrator, later identified as Mr. R., but is this really the case?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think I am "hearing" at least two voices as I
read this chapter. This is most evident in the fourth paragraph:
"Hullo, person! What's the matter, don't pull me. I'm not bothering him.
Oh, all right. Hullo, person . . . (last time, in a very small voice)."
Obviously, there are two personae involved in the action of this paragraph:
the one who we've (prematurely) identified as Mr. R., who is attempting to
hail the "person," and someone else who is preventing him from doing so.
But this is not my reason for drawing attention to this paragraph. What
interests me is the parenthetical comment. Whose voice is that? The
"Hullo, person"s belong to one narrator, but the parenthetical "last
time..." appears to be a voice that is filtering the hailer (Mr. R.), and
can thus tell the reader that the hailer is hailing one "last time, in a
very small voice." To clarify, the parenthetical comment does not directly
represent speech, but rather describes the quality of that speech. So it
seems to me that there are multiple levels of narration, at least in this
paragraph.
I am also curious whether others detect variations of tone between the
paragraphs of this chapter. Is the narrator who kicks off the first
paragraph ("Hullo, person!") the same as the narrator who begins the second
paragraph ("Perhaps if the future existed, concretely and individually...")?
Jamie Olson
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Transparent Things Group Reading: Chapter I
> ------------------
> Greetings
> I'm very glad you started this....nobody ever wants to go first.
> 1. The hullo I've always thought of as not only a greating to Person
> ('doesn't hear me') but also kind of a exclamation of discovery (a la
> Sherlock Holmes...he says it in almost every story after The Sign of
Four).
> It comes from one of a group of angels/observers/narrators (I think Boyd
> has written something about that.) Why it is spelt the way it is, I don't
> know (phonetically?).
> 2. No Idea but isn't he mention in Ada as well.
> Dane
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ED. The "HULLO" marks the narrator as a non-native speaker of English
> ----------------------------------
>
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> > Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Transparent Things Group Reading: Chapter I
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:06:17 -0700
> >
> > Since no one has taken the initiative in the TT read, I offer an opening
> > thought and query.
> >
> > 1. What's with that "Hullo"? Who are the characters in Ch. I? Evidence?
> >
> > 2. The second paragraph introduces the TIME theme. Is there, BTW, a
person
> > out there conversant with Henri Bergson's ideas on TIME, who can montior
> > the theme as we read?
> >
> > 3. My own opening shot:
> > If the future existed (which it doesn't), "Persons might then
> > straddle
> > the middle stretch of the seesaw when considering this or that object."
> > This is a very neat metaphor. The two ends of the "seesaw" depict the
> > PAST & the FUTURE. The PRESENT is the fulcrum astride which the
individual
> > looks at the PAST and FUTURE from the PRESENT. The word "SEESAW"
> > encapsulates the present (or future) tense of "to see" while the "saw"
is
> > the past tense.
> > Very apt, if etymologically inaccurate. The playground object's
> > name
> > involves a reduplication of "saw" in the sense of "sawing logs" and
refers
> > to the up & down motion of the act.
> > Out of curiosity, I checked Sergey Ilyin's Russian translation in
> > the
> > SYMPOSIUM volumes. He translates "seesaw" as "kachayushchaya doska"
> > (swinging board) thus losing the semantic play which is, I suspect,
> > untranslatable. It might be entertaining to look at translations into
> > other languages to see how it is handled.
> > Note also that VN points out at the start that the imagery is not
> > entirely
> > successful since in Mr. R's view the future (one end of the board)
> > doesn't exist.
> > I suspect what VN means is that while the FUTURE may exist as an
> > abstract
> > concept, it remains vacant or unpopulated until someone arrives to sit
on
> > the far end of the seesaw.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > D. Barton Johnson
> > NABOKV-L
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht
> tp://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L