Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3390 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3390
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 11 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3390
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:56:20 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>All in all, I think Nabokov's choice of this particular quote is meant
to
> poke fun at Boswell *and* Johnson, their relationship, their pretensions,
> the text generated therefrom and so forth, *as well as* at Kinbote *and*
> Shade and theirs.<<<
>
> Historian Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859) called Boswell's worship of Dr.
> Johnson "Lues Boswelliana, or disease of admiration."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: FYI, from the N-list
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jennifer Parsons" <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
> > ---------------- Message requiring your approval
> (648
> lines) ------------------
>
> > DBJ and List,
> >
> > It may be a good moment to mention that Pale Fire is
> currently being
> > discussed for the third or fourth time on the
> nytimes.com book forums
> - -
> > specifically the Vladimir Nabokov forum - as well.
> All
> > Nabokovians/Nabokophiles welcome.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:27:48 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> It's not the cat but the shot, and which cat doesn't get it, that relates
> the epigraph to Kinbote's story. Innit?
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
> jbor:
>
> > I'd say that the relationship between Nabokov's epigraph and his novel
is
> > more oblique than that between Pynchon's and _Vineland_.
>
> [...]
>
> With _Pale Fire_ I
> > get the sense that the satiric connection is between Kinbote (as
Boswell)
> > and Shade (as Johnson), but the specific content of the anecdote doesn't
> > correlate with the narrative in the same way that the modified proverb
or
> > clichИ does in _Vineland_. (In other words, no cat.)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:55:25 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> > Well, it's not like the Vinelanders weren't "pushing" back. If I recall,
> > someone was circulating a hosting schedule before a decision was even
made
> > on what book to read.
>
> _Vineland_ had been brought up by *several* listers over the past year or
so
> as a suggested choice for the next group read, given a) it's relevance to
> the current political milieu, and b) it hadn't been done in several years.
> In the past, certain listers have claimed that when one wants to propose a
> group read, one simply posts a hosting schedule and sees if it fills up.
I
> did. It did. There was interest in reading _Vineland_, and there
continues
> to be. So, golly. Your point?
>
> >
> > I hope you aren't counting me. I never made any claims to want a
> restricted
> > discussion. This "balking" claim is starting to sound like another case
of
> > "repeat it enough times and it becomes the truth."
>
> Oh ... I misunderstood. So, when you sed: "I for one feel no obligation
to
> continually link Pale Fire to Pynchon during this reading" and "To believe
> that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to Pynchon in order to
> please a vocal minority is misguided" and "Policing the discussion so that
> all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions connect directly to Pynchon is a
> limitation that defuses any real freedom of communication" and even
"please
> stop wasting bandwidth by insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP
> connection," these statements were meant in the spirit of facilitating a
> non-restrictive synthesis of discussion between Nabokov and Pynchon? How
> silly of me.
>
> >
> > >It wouldn't take all that much effort to equate the
> > > work of Nabokov to the works of P, would it?
> >
> > That's not the point, and you know it. Read through some of these
> > "imploding" posts, and you'll see plenty of commentary on that.
>
> "Plenty" is a relative term. Rob did a nice job earlier this evening with
> his post. About two or three other posts thus far have begun to do it,
too.
> But "plenty"? Waxing hyperbolic, I'm afraid.
>
> >
> > Oh, come on, for heaven's sake! I think a few of us have explained
fairly
> > well and in great detail why we want a more free and unrestricted
> > discussion. To accuse us of being lazy and slovenly is really off base,
> and
> > rather offensive.
>
> You're the only one I've really heard say anything about a need to be
"free"
> and "unrestricted." This is an *unmoderated* list, for christ's sake ...
> how much more "free" and "unrestricted" do you want it? And remember, the
> bottom line on this issue (like it or not) is to be found on the Pynchon-L
> home page: "As far as we're concerned, pretty much any Pynchon-related
topic
> is OK on this list, from Pynchon apocrypha through light discussion of our
> favourite passages, to litcrit as heavy as you want."
> http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l The intention of the list owners is
> to provide a forum for *Pynchon-related* discussion. Bottom line. Period.
>
> Basically, you can do as you want. You and others will anyways. But
> setting out to read PF for its own sake without the requisite P connection
> alienates a lot of listers -- lurkers, perhaps, but Pynchon enthusiasts
> nonetheless. Pretty unfortunate.
>
> >
> > --Quail, somewhat less respectfully
> >
>
> That's too bad. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion.
>
>
> Tim S. (wearing his "free" and "unrestricted" boxer shorts)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:46:51 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
>
> DC
>
> > It's not the cat but the shot, and which cat doesn't get it, that
relates
> > the epigraph to Kinbote's story. Innit?
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> > jbor:
> >
> > > I'd say that the relationship between Nabokov's epigraph and his novel
> is
> > > more oblique than that between Pynchon's and _Vineland_.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > With _Pale Fire_ I
> > > get the sense that the satiric connection is between Kinbote (as
> Boswell)
> > > and Shade (as Johnson), but the specific content of the anecdote
doesn't
> > > correlate with the narrative in the same way that the modified proverb
> or
> > > clichИ does in _Vineland_. (In other words, no cat.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:00:35 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?<<<
>
> And what is the purpose of an epigraph?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > we might as well
> > abandon the fucking read.
>
> Or, eschewing histrionics, you could follow jbor's
> fine example -- his recent post that compares and
> contrasts the epigraphs of Pale Fire and Vineland. In
> his own inimitable style, Terrance has also been
> discussing the two authors and their works. You can
> compare two authors, two books, if you want to do it.
> It's not particularly easy (unless you want to remain
> at the fqmorris level of literary discourse), but it's
> not impossible either.
>
> Blaming Tim or myself is pretty lame -- a lot of
> people wondered, and continue to do so, at the wisdom
> of discussing a Nabokov novel on th P-list, and many
> signed up to discuss Vineland (more than Pale Fire, if
> I remember correctly). I think everybody will enjoy a
> reading of Pale Fire that tries to make itself
> specifically relevant to our reading of Pynchon; I
> know that I will.
>
> I agree 100 percent that a discussion Pale Fire
> designed to help understand Pynchon better is a great
> idea, davemarc offered some fine advice along those
> lines. Along with quite a few others, I just wonder
> when that's going to start; contributions from jbor
> and Terrance excepted, this Pale Fire reading shows no
> sign of making any effort to bring Pynchon into the
> picture, and the most outspoken defenders of this
> project (Quail, Keith, etc.) continue to insist that
> there's no need to do anything special to bring
> Pynchon into the discussion.
>
> Having seen the light about the need for Pynchon
> relevance in our posts -- thanks in part to the
> well-intentioned hectoring from yourself and some
> other upstanding burghers of Pynchonville -- I'm just
> doing what I can to help move the discussion in that
> direction. I've also learned a lot from watching Keith
> tease and prod and prick one balloon after another,
> noting all the wonderful feelings of camaraderie and
> friendship that his playful approach has engendered in
> our little online community, and I've been quite
> surprised to see how touchy he is when others tease
> him a little. Maybe he's just having a tough day, and,
> if so -- hang in there, Keith, this too shall pass.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:08:01 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> >>>Basically, you can do as you want. You and others will anyways. But
> setting out to read PF for its own sake without the requisite P connection
> alienates a lot of listers -- lurkers, perhaps, but Pynchon enthusiasts
> nonetheless. Pretty unfortunate.<<<
>
> Seeing you in those boxer shorts makes it all worthwhile.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:15:09 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>> All in all, I think Nabokov's choice of this particular quote is
meant to
> > poke fun at Boswell *and* Johnson, their relationship, their
pretensions,
> > the text generated therefrom and so forth, *as well as* at Kinbote *and*
> > Shade and theirs.<<<
>
> on 11/7/03 12:56 PM, s~Z wrote:
>
> > Historian Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859) called Boswell's worship of Dr.
> > Johnson "Lues Boswelliana, or disease of admiration."
>
> Pynchon's satiric depiction of the relationship between Boswell and
Johnson
> in _M&D_ has some affinities with the similarly satiric purport of
Nabokov's
> chosen epigraph. There are also similarities in the parodic mirroring of
> Boswell and Johnson in Kinbote and Shade, and in Cherrycoke and M & D.
>
> 718.4 Some horrible Boswell pursues them, asking questions.
>
> 746.1 " ... he intends to go to the Hebrides, to the furthest Isle ... "
>
> 747.21 "I had my Boswell, once," Mason tells Boswell, "Dixon and I. We
> had a joint Boswell. Preacher nam'd Cherrycoke. Scribbling everything
> down, just like you, Sir. Have you," twirling his Hand in Ellipses,--
> "you know, ever...had one yourself? If I'm not prying."
> "Had one what?"
> "Hum...a Boswell, Sir,-- I mean, of your own. Well you couldn't
> very well call him that, being one yourself,-- say, a sort of Shadow
> ever in the Room who has haunted you, preserving your ev'ry spoken
> remark,-- "
>
> best
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:19:12 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> on 11/7/03 1:46 PM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
>
> Well, it precedes the Index of Contents and Kinbote's Foreword, and it
> occupies the same space in the text between the title page and these as
does
> Nabokov's dedication of the novel to VИra, so ...
>
>
> - ---------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:39:37 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin? The dedication is inarguably
> Nabokov's. The table of contents is both Nabokov's and Kinbote's: it
> describes both Pale Fire, A Novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and Pale Fire, A
Poem
> in Four Cantos by John Slade, with commentary by Charles Kinbote. I think
> that leaves the epigraph in a kind of ambiguous middle ground.
>
> Which is interesting. It's a nice picture, Kinbote at the end of his
> literary labor having a scotch and choosing the epigraph, imagining
himself
> as Slade's Boswell and, at the same time, Hodge the unshot cat.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> Corathers:
> > Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin?
>
> In your mind, when you start thinking about reading
> the novel. Where else could it be?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:18:03 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> >>> And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
> >>
> >> Well, it precedes the Index of Contents and Kinbote's Foreword, and it
> >> occupies the same space in the text between the title page and these as
> > does
> >> Nabokov's dedication of the novel to VИra, so ...
>
> on 11/7/03 2:39 PM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin? The dedication is
inarguably
> > Nabokov's. The table of contents is both Nabokov's and Kinbote's: it
> > describes both Pale Fire, A Novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and Pale Fire, A
Poem
> > in Four Cantos by John Slade, with commentary by Charles Kinbote. I
think
> > that leaves the epigraph in a kind of ambiguous middle ground.
>
> Perhaps. I think that Nabokov clearly acknowledges his authorship of the
> novel at the outset, and the dedication and epigraph are positioned in
their
> conventional spots, which is why I view them as the author's rather than
his
> character's. Further, I don't think the picture you present below quite
> matches with what we come to know about Kinbote or his state of mind as he
> takes flight, Shade's poem in hand, and composes his Foreword and
Commentary
> to it. And the specific quote he chooses, if indeed we assume Kinbote did
> choose it, isn't particularly flattering to either Johnson or Boswell (nor
> thus to himself or Shade), nor does it correlate much to the whole debacle
> as he perceives or imagines it. For one thing, Kinbote believes himself to
> be of equal or greater stature than Shade in the general scheme of things,
> and would cast Shade as his own Boswell (or panegyrist), if but he could,
> rather than vice versa. In fact, he overtly eschews the role of Shade's
> biographer (eg. see "Commentary: Line 71").
>
> All that said, it's a possibility of course, and worth considering. I just
> think that it allows Kinbote greater self-awareness and a healthier sense
of
> humour than the rest of the novel would actually warrant.
>
> NB also Kinbote's remarks about Judge Goldsworth's cat (see "Commentary:
> Lines 47-48"). These don't relate to the Epigraph, nor do they betray a
> consciousness of it, at all. The shooting of Shade, like Judge
Goldsworth's
> cat, resonates only very superficially with the novel's Epigraph imo.
>
> best
>
> > Which is interesting. It's a nice picture, Kinbote at the end of his
> > literary labor having a scotch and choosing the epigraph, imagining
himself
> > as Slade's Boswell and, at the same time, Hodge the unshot cat.
>
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> >
> > Tim writes
> > > Basically, I stand by my previous assertion: a
> > > few people who "pushed" for a group reading of PF
> > > assured the P-list that, among other things, it
> > > would help us understand and appreciate the works
> > > of Pynchon.
> >
> > Well, it's not like the Vinelanders weren't
> > "pushing" back. If I recall, someone was circulating
> > a hosting schedule before a decision was even made
> > on what book to read.
>
> This is true of either alleged "side" here. And ...?
> So ...? See what I mean? We have no real procedure
> for making any such decision (this, by the way, is not
> necessarily a bad thing). Sure, someone might try to
> drum up some support for something or another from the
> List at large, and they might hear one way or another
> from the rather fewer members who post on even a
> biennial basis, but, ultimately, someone simply acts,
> and others act and/or react dis/accordingly. Or not.
> Not entirely unlike politics in most every offscreen
> corner of the world most any of us inhabit here. So,
> in the meantime, there are those ostensibly discussing
> Pale Fire, those ostensibly discussing Vineland, a few
> attempting to keep up with both, and, interestingly
> though not unpredictably, somewhat less friendly
> albeit barely on- to clearly off-topic chit-chat (not
> necessarily undesirable, indeed, has been mentioned
> here recently as one of the strengths of this list),
> and rather more barely-disguised to outright hostility
> over, well, what? For my part, again, I'll barely
> have the time to keep up with Vineland in the
> foreseeable future (esp. whilst working on hosting an
> early Ch.). My complaint, insofar as it is one (and
> it isn't, not quite), is that mounting a methodical PF
> reading will likely divert effort that might otherwise
> have been made reading VL. Methodically, enduringly
> so. While doings on the P-List have never been
> exclusively P-related, they've not generally been
> pointedly, caculatedly not so. And I just end up
> deleting more items I might in some other situation
> have been quite interested in. But I've only so much
> time, and my hands hurt, so ...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3390
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3390
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 11 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3390
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:56:20 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>All in all, I think Nabokov's choice of this particular quote is meant
to
> poke fun at Boswell *and* Johnson, their relationship, their pretensions,
> the text generated therefrom and so forth, *as well as* at Kinbote *and*
> Shade and theirs.<<<
>
> Historian Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859) called Boswell's worship of Dr.
> Johnson "Lues Boswelliana, or disease of admiration."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: FYI, from the N-list
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jennifer Parsons" <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
> > ---------------- Message requiring your approval
> (648
> lines) ------------------
>
> > DBJ and List,
> >
> > It may be a good moment to mention that Pale Fire is
> currently being
> > discussed for the third or fourth time on the
> nytimes.com book forums
> - -
> > specifically the Vladimir Nabokov forum - as well.
> All
> > Nabokovians/Nabokophiles welcome.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:27:48 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> It's not the cat but the shot, and which cat doesn't get it, that relates
> the epigraph to Kinbote's story. Innit?
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
> jbor:
>
> > I'd say that the relationship between Nabokov's epigraph and his novel
is
> > more oblique than that between Pynchon's and _Vineland_.
>
> [...]
>
> With _Pale Fire_ I
> > get the sense that the satiric connection is between Kinbote (as
Boswell)
> > and Shade (as Johnson), but the specific content of the anecdote doesn't
> > correlate with the narrative in the same way that the modified proverb
or
> > clichИ does in _Vineland_. (In other words, no cat.)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:55:25 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> > Well, it's not like the Vinelanders weren't "pushing" back. If I recall,
> > someone was circulating a hosting schedule before a decision was even
made
> > on what book to read.
>
> _Vineland_ had been brought up by *several* listers over the past year or
so
> as a suggested choice for the next group read, given a) it's relevance to
> the current political milieu, and b) it hadn't been done in several years.
> In the past, certain listers have claimed that when one wants to propose a
> group read, one simply posts a hosting schedule and sees if it fills up.
I
> did. It did. There was interest in reading _Vineland_, and there
continues
> to be. So, golly. Your point?
>
> >
> > I hope you aren't counting me. I never made any claims to want a
> restricted
> > discussion. This "balking" claim is starting to sound like another case
of
> > "repeat it enough times and it becomes the truth."
>
> Oh ... I misunderstood. So, when you sed: "I for one feel no obligation
to
> continually link Pale Fire to Pynchon during this reading" and "To believe
> that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to Pynchon in order to
> please a vocal minority is misguided" and "Policing the discussion so that
> all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions connect directly to Pynchon is a
> limitation that defuses any real freedom of communication" and even
"please
> stop wasting bandwidth by insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP
> connection," these statements were meant in the spirit of facilitating a
> non-restrictive synthesis of discussion between Nabokov and Pynchon? How
> silly of me.
>
> >
> > >It wouldn't take all that much effort to equate the
> > > work of Nabokov to the works of P, would it?
> >
> > That's not the point, and you know it. Read through some of these
> > "imploding" posts, and you'll see plenty of commentary on that.
>
> "Plenty" is a relative term. Rob did a nice job earlier this evening with
> his post. About two or three other posts thus far have begun to do it,
too.
> But "plenty"? Waxing hyperbolic, I'm afraid.
>
> >
> > Oh, come on, for heaven's sake! I think a few of us have explained
fairly
> > well and in great detail why we want a more free and unrestricted
> > discussion. To accuse us of being lazy and slovenly is really off base,
> and
> > rather offensive.
>
> You're the only one I've really heard say anything about a need to be
"free"
> and "unrestricted." This is an *unmoderated* list, for christ's sake ...
> how much more "free" and "unrestricted" do you want it? And remember, the
> bottom line on this issue (like it or not) is to be found on the Pynchon-L
> home page: "As far as we're concerned, pretty much any Pynchon-related
topic
> is OK on this list, from Pynchon apocrypha through light discussion of our
> favourite passages, to litcrit as heavy as you want."
> http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l The intention of the list owners is
> to provide a forum for *Pynchon-related* discussion. Bottom line. Period.
>
> Basically, you can do as you want. You and others will anyways. But
> setting out to read PF for its own sake without the requisite P connection
> alienates a lot of listers -- lurkers, perhaps, but Pynchon enthusiasts
> nonetheless. Pretty unfortunate.
>
> >
> > --Quail, somewhat less respectfully
> >
>
> That's too bad. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion.
>
>
> Tim S. (wearing his "free" and "unrestricted" boxer shorts)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:46:51 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
>
> DC
>
> > It's not the cat but the shot, and which cat doesn't get it, that
relates
> > the epigraph to Kinbote's story. Innit?
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> > jbor:
> >
> > > I'd say that the relationship between Nabokov's epigraph and his novel
> is
> > > more oblique than that between Pynchon's and _Vineland_.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > With _Pale Fire_ I
> > > get the sense that the satiric connection is between Kinbote (as
> Boswell)
> > > and Shade (as Johnson), but the specific content of the anecdote
doesn't
> > > correlate with the narrative in the same way that the modified proverb
> or
> > > clichИ does in _Vineland_. (In other words, no cat.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:00:35 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?<<<
>
> And what is the purpose of an epigraph?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > we might as well
> > abandon the fucking read.
>
> Or, eschewing histrionics, you could follow jbor's
> fine example -- his recent post that compares and
> contrasts the epigraphs of Pale Fire and Vineland. In
> his own inimitable style, Terrance has also been
> discussing the two authors and their works. You can
> compare two authors, two books, if you want to do it.
> It's not particularly easy (unless you want to remain
> at the fqmorris level of literary discourse), but it's
> not impossible either.
>
> Blaming Tim or myself is pretty lame -- a lot of
> people wondered, and continue to do so, at the wisdom
> of discussing a Nabokov novel on th P-list, and many
> signed up to discuss Vineland (more than Pale Fire, if
> I remember correctly). I think everybody will enjoy a
> reading of Pale Fire that tries to make itself
> specifically relevant to our reading of Pynchon; I
> know that I will.
>
> I agree 100 percent that a discussion Pale Fire
> designed to help understand Pynchon better is a great
> idea, davemarc offered some fine advice along those
> lines. Along with quite a few others, I just wonder
> when that's going to start; contributions from jbor
> and Terrance excepted, this Pale Fire reading shows no
> sign of making any effort to bring Pynchon into the
> picture, and the most outspoken defenders of this
> project (Quail, Keith, etc.) continue to insist that
> there's no need to do anything special to bring
> Pynchon into the discussion.
>
> Having seen the light about the need for Pynchon
> relevance in our posts -- thanks in part to the
> well-intentioned hectoring from yourself and some
> other upstanding burghers of Pynchonville -- I'm just
> doing what I can to help move the discussion in that
> direction. I've also learned a lot from watching Keith
> tease and prod and prick one balloon after another,
> noting all the wonderful feelings of camaraderie and
> friendship that his playful approach has engendered in
> our little online community, and I've been quite
> surprised to see how touchy he is when others tease
> him a little. Maybe he's just having a tough day, and,
> if so -- hang in there, Keith, this too shall pass.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:08:01 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> >>>Basically, you can do as you want. You and others will anyways. But
> setting out to read PF for its own sake without the requisite P connection
> alienates a lot of listers -- lurkers, perhaps, but Pynchon enthusiasts
> nonetheless. Pretty unfortunate.<<<
>
> Seeing you in those boxer shorts makes it all worthwhile.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:15:09 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> >>>> All in all, I think Nabokov's choice of this particular quote is
meant to
> > poke fun at Boswell *and* Johnson, their relationship, their
pretensions,
> > the text generated therefrom and so forth, *as well as* at Kinbote *and*
> > Shade and theirs.<<<
>
> on 11/7/03 12:56 PM, s~Z wrote:
>
> > Historian Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859) called Boswell's worship of Dr.
> > Johnson "Lues Boswelliana, or disease of admiration."
>
> Pynchon's satiric depiction of the relationship between Boswell and
Johnson
> in _M&D_ has some affinities with the similarly satiric purport of
Nabokov's
> chosen epigraph. There are also similarities in the parodic mirroring of
> Boswell and Johnson in Kinbote and Shade, and in Cherrycoke and M & D.
>
> 718.4 Some horrible Boswell pursues them, asking questions.
>
> 746.1 " ... he intends to go to the Hebrides, to the furthest Isle ... "
>
> 747.21 "I had my Boswell, once," Mason tells Boswell, "Dixon and I. We
> had a joint Boswell. Preacher nam'd Cherrycoke. Scribbling everything
> down, just like you, Sir. Have you," twirling his Hand in Ellipses,--
> "you know, ever...had one yourself? If I'm not prying."
> "Had one what?"
> "Hum...a Boswell, Sir,-- I mean, of your own. Well you couldn't
> very well call him that, being one yourself,-- say, a sort of Shadow
> ever in the Room who has haunted you, preserving your ev'ry spoken
> remark,-- "
>
> best
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:19:12 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> on 11/7/03 1:46 PM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
>
> Well, it precedes the Index of Contents and Kinbote's Foreword, and it
> occupies the same space in the text between the title page and these as
does
> Nabokov's dedication of the novel to VИra, so ...
>
>
> - ---------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:39:37 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin? The dedication is inarguably
> Nabokov's. The table of contents is both Nabokov's and Kinbote's: it
> describes both Pale Fire, A Novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and Pale Fire, A
Poem
> in Four Cantos by John Slade, with commentary by Charles Kinbote. I think
> that leaves the epigraph in a kind of ambiguous middle ground.
>
> Which is interesting. It's a nice picture, Kinbote at the end of his
> literary labor having a scotch and choosing the epigraph, imagining
himself
> as Slade's Boswell and, at the same time, Hodge the unshot cat.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF&VLVL2 Preliminaries: The Epigraphs
>
> Corathers:
> > Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin?
>
> In your mind, when you start thinking about reading
> the novel. Where else could it be?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:18:03 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> >>> And is it Nabokov's epigraph, or Kinbote's?
> >>
> >> Well, it precedes the Index of Contents and Kinbote's Foreword, and it
> >> occupies the same space in the text between the title page and these as
> > does
> >> Nabokov's dedication of the novel to VИra, so ...
>
> on 11/7/03 2:39 PM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > Well, yeah. But where does the fiction begin? The dedication is
inarguably
> > Nabokov's. The table of contents is both Nabokov's and Kinbote's: it
> > describes both Pale Fire, A Novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and Pale Fire, A
Poem
> > in Four Cantos by John Slade, with commentary by Charles Kinbote. I
think
> > that leaves the epigraph in a kind of ambiguous middle ground.
>
> Perhaps. I think that Nabokov clearly acknowledges his authorship of the
> novel at the outset, and the dedication and epigraph are positioned in
their
> conventional spots, which is why I view them as the author's rather than
his
> character's. Further, I don't think the picture you present below quite
> matches with what we come to know about Kinbote or his state of mind as he
> takes flight, Shade's poem in hand, and composes his Foreword and
Commentary
> to it. And the specific quote he chooses, if indeed we assume Kinbote did
> choose it, isn't particularly flattering to either Johnson or Boswell (nor
> thus to himself or Shade), nor does it correlate much to the whole debacle
> as he perceives or imagines it. For one thing, Kinbote believes himself to
> be of equal or greater stature than Shade in the general scheme of things,
> and would cast Shade as his own Boswell (or panegyrist), if but he could,
> rather than vice versa. In fact, he overtly eschews the role of Shade's
> biographer (eg. see "Commentary: Line 71").
>
> All that said, it's a possibility of course, and worth considering. I just
> think that it allows Kinbote greater self-awareness and a healthier sense
of
> humour than the rest of the novel would actually warrant.
>
> NB also Kinbote's remarks about Judge Goldsworth's cat (see "Commentary:
> Lines 47-48"). These don't relate to the Epigraph, nor do they betray a
> consciousness of it, at all. The shooting of Shade, like Judge
Goldsworth's
> cat, resonates only very superficially with the novel's Epigraph imo.
>
> best
>
> > Which is interesting. It's a nice picture, Kinbote at the end of his
> > literary labor having a scotch and choosing the epigraph, imagining
himself
> > as Slade's Boswell and, at the same time, Hodge the unshot cat.
>
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> >
> > Tim writes
> > > Basically, I stand by my previous assertion: a
> > > few people who "pushed" for a group reading of PF
> > > assured the P-list that, among other things, it
> > > would help us understand and appreciate the works
> > > of Pynchon.
> >
> > Well, it's not like the Vinelanders weren't
> > "pushing" back. If I recall, someone was circulating
> > a hosting schedule before a decision was even made
> > on what book to read.
>
> This is true of either alleged "side" here. And ...?
> So ...? See what I mean? We have no real procedure
> for making any such decision (this, by the way, is not
> necessarily a bad thing). Sure, someone might try to
> drum up some support for something or another from the
> List at large, and they might hear one way or another
> from the rather fewer members who post on even a
> biennial basis, but, ultimately, someone simply acts,
> and others act and/or react dis/accordingly. Or not.
> Not entirely unlike politics in most every offscreen
> corner of the world most any of us inhabit here. So,
> in the meantime, there are those ostensibly discussing
> Pale Fire, those ostensibly discussing Vineland, a few
> attempting to keep up with both, and, interestingly
> though not unpredictably, somewhat less friendly
> albeit barely on- to clearly off-topic chit-chat (not
> necessarily undesirable, indeed, has been mentioned
> here recently as one of the strengths of this list),
> and rather more barely-disguised to outright hostility
> over, well, what? For my part, again, I'll barely
> have the time to keep up with Vineland in the
> foreseeable future (esp. whilst working on hosting an
> early Ch.). My complaint, insofar as it is one (and
> it isn't, not quite), is that mounting a methodical PF
> reading will likely divert effort that might otherwise
> have been made reading VL. Methodically, enduringly
> so. While doings on the P-List have never been
> exclusively P-related, they've not generally been
> pointedly, caculatedly not so. And I just end up
> deleting more items I might in some other situation
> have been quite interested in. But I've only so much
> time, and my hands hurt, so ...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3390
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.