Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3410 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3410
>
> pynchon-l-digest Monday, July 14 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3410
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:53 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> It seems a general consensus that the town depicted in Pale Fire
> is actually Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University where VN taught
> (and Pynchon attended).
>
>
> Excellent job on the notes and summary, Jasper.
>
> It's interesting (and not real surprising) that Nabokov took some pains to
confuse the geography of New Wye. Several of his sparing uses of real place
names seem to seek to place the town in Virginia rather than upstate New
York. We're told early that it's at the latitude of Palermo (which is almost
directly on the 38th parallel, as is Charlottesville). It's 400 train miles
from New York City, and an alternative to taking the direct or express train
from New York is to go to Washington and catch the local, not a very good
way to get to Ithaca. It's reasonably close to Roanoke (where Jack Grey
apparently escaped from custody and hitchhiked to New Wye).
>
> Charlottesville, of course, is the home of the University of Virginia,
founded by Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a wordsmith himself.
>
> I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
>
> Don Corathers
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> > I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
> Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
>
> Cornell is a very big University. I think the New Wye college portrays a
much
> smaller place.
>
> David Morris
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:39:54 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
this
> paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
>
> Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> has carefully rechecked [...]
>
> Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
coincidental
> typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
>
> I think your first observation is correct. "Insert before a professional"
is
> Kinbote's instruction about where to insert the preceding sentence, the
note
> which "good old Frank", no doubt covering himself against responsibility
for
> the "mistakes" (a hilarious understatement) in Kinbote's commentary, has
> asked him to include.
>
> The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
(only,
> I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
not
> have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
>
> best
>
>
> on 15/7/03 2:01 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess there are at least two ways to reconstruct how the "Insert
> > before a professional" interjection got in the text.
> >
> > My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of a
proofing note
> > to insert the word "professional" before the word "proofreader."
> >
> > It makes more sense as a note that was set in type by mistake at the
bottom of
> > the text insert, which is the preceding sentence: "Frank has
acknowledged the
> > safe return..."
> >
> > A much neater explanation. The inserted sentence is something that
_would_
> > have to be inserted, the product of a note from the publisher to the
editor
> > after a review of the galley proofs.
> >
> > My take on this is still that it shows there was a process of preparing
the
> > manuscript for publication under way. Seems to me the (fictional)
typesetter's
> > mistaken inclusion of the instruction is a pretty pointed indication
that
> > hands other than Kinbote's were at work on the project. (That is, that
the
> > poem and commentary have a reality outside of Kinbote's delusion.)
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> >> Date: 2003/07/14 Mon AM 11:36:04 EDT
> >> To: The Whole Sick Crew <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> >> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
> >>
> >>> He says the poem has been proofed, if not the
> >>> commentary.
> >>>
> >>> And the very next sentence: "insert before a
> >>> professional." Followed by "A professional ..."
> >>
> >> Yeah, I find this a very puzzling item, and it seems to be a "clue" to
> >> *something.* Did the proofreader who looked at the poem also look at
the
> >> foreword, but Kinbote, being rather in a tizzy, failed to note a
comment? Or
> >> is it a note by Kinbote to himself that was accidentally retained?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:01:12 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> >> I'm inclined to reject this idea. I don't think the
> >> poem is "first-rate" in itself. I do think it's a
> >> first-rate parody of a type of pseudo-Eliotesque
> >> bombast, however. In that sense, it's Nabokov's poem,
> >> rather than Shade's, which might be called
> >> "first-rate".
>
> and
>
> >> <<... and my stance on this is that it is Nabokov's
> >> poem, as parody and satire, which is a far greater
> >> achievement than Shade's, *even though it's exactly
> >> the same poem ...>>
>
> on 15/7/03 12:40 AM, Malignd at malignd@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It's interesting to consider the idea that VN in
> > service of the novel Pale Fire, made the poem Pale
> > Fire second rate, if only in specific ways; i.e., ways
> > that invest Shade's character and frame him in a
> > particular way. One might say (although, it states
> > the case too crudely; nevertheless--) that the quality
> > of the poem as VN's is inversely proportional to the
> > quality of the poem as Shade's.
> >
> > But a question, then: if VN can, because of the
> > context, be applauded for intentional weaknesses
> > within the poem, can one not say the same about Shade?
> > Could Shade deliberately muck about in his own poem
> > in response to his own aesthetic demands, e.g., a
> > rigorously honest self-revelation, say, to
> > intentionally assume a more ordinary voice, a less
> > refined talent than he's capable of, much as a
> > novelist might, writing in the first person?
> >
> > More broadly, can any poet elevate, by his own
> > insisted-upon context and point of view, something
> > that would otherwise be deemed second-rate? Could
> > Shade himself not create the context that turns his
> > Brillo box of a poem into art? I think the answer
> > must be yes, if we're going to allow that that's true
> > for VN's poem within the novel Pale Fire.
>
> I've put forward Pope's 'The Rape of the Lock' as a touchstone for this.
My
> point is that Nabokov's context (and thus his purpose) is obviously quite
> different to Shade's. It is not his daughter who committed suicide because
> she was stood up at the outset of a blind date, and it is not he who
> suffered a heart attack at the "Crashaw Club" while giving a talk on "'Why
> Poetry is Meaningful to Us'", thought he glimpsed Heaven whilst
unconscious,
> and who then went in search of "Mrs Z.", who he believed had had the same
> vision but discovered that the newspaper report on her near-death
experience
> had misprinted "fountain" for "mountain". This is all quite funny stuff in
> itself, but that Shade, a supposedly respected poet if not a major one,
has
> used it as the substance for an overblown verse epic meditating on life,
> death and art, is even funnier. Much of the comedy of it, I find, is at
> Shade's expense, though there are moments of true pathos and of stylistic
> prowess in the poem as well. (I don't think it's a matter of the quality
of
> the poem being "inversely proportional" at all.)
>
> I find it difficult to believe that Shade would intentionally write a
> "second-rate" poem (and it's not so much a question of it being
> "second-rate", which is a subjective call made by the reader, as it is of
> him composing and presenting such a mix of ridiculous, banal and
apparently
> tragic personal material in this manner), certainly not one in this style,
> of this length, and on these subjects and themes. That Nabokov has him
write
> it makes all the difference. As I said, I think Nabokov satirises Shade
> (through the poem and through the other components of the text), and I
think
> the poem itself is intended (by Nabokov, though not by Shade) as a parody.
>
> There's one other point you've made which I'd contest. You wrote of
>
> > the membrane
> > between Nabokov's novel and the artifact that it
> > contains (and that happens, the artifact, to coincide
> > word for word with the entirety of Nabokov's novel).
>
> I don't think this is correct. Nabokov's novel incorporates a dedication
to
> VИra, his wife, and (arguably, at least) the Epigraph from Boswell's _Life
> of Samuel Johnson_, which are outside "the artifact that it contains".
>
> best
>
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> on 15/7/03 10:39 AM, jbor wrote:
>
> > The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> > returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> > wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> > inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
(only,
> > I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
not
> > have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> > Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> > incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
>
> The "professional proofreader" would have to have done the check on the
poem
> before the whole manuscript was sent off to Frank.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:18:10 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> The Vintage reads the same way.
>
> I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had been
> sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo (I
> think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote to
> have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request if
the
> request came in the same communication from Frank as the acknowledgement
> that the proof had been returned. Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling between
New
> York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
five
> sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
layout.)
> Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately. Or,
> perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on the
> proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why he
had
> to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating the
> position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor@bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
>
> > In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
> this
> > paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
> >
> > Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> > sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> > willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> > commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> > has carefully rechecked [...]
> >
> > Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
> coincidental
> > typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
> >
> > I think your first observation is correct. "Insert before a
professional"
> is
> > Kinbote's instruction about where to insert the preceding sentence, the
> note
> > which "good old Frank", no doubt covering himself against responsibility
> for
> > the "mistakes" (a hilarious understatement) in Kinbote's commentary, has
> > asked him to include.
> >
> > The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> > returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> > wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> > inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
> (only,
> > I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
> not
> > have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> > Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> > incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
> >
> > best
> >
> >
> > on 15/7/03 2:01 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, I guess there are at least two ways to reconstruct how the
"Insert
> > > before a professional" interjection got in the text.
> > >
> > > My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of a
> proofing note
> > > to insert the word "professional" before the word "proofreader."
> > >
> > > It makes more sense as a note that was set in type by mistake at the
> bottom of
> > > the text insert, which is the preceding sentence: "Frank has
> acknowledged the
> > > safe return..."
> > >
> > > A much neater explanation. The inserted sentence is something that
> _would_
> > > have to be inserted, the product of a note from the publisher to the
> editor
> > > after a review of the galley proofs.
> > >
> > > My take on this is still that it shows there was a process of
preparing
> the
> > > manuscript for publication under way. Seems to me the (fictional)
> typesetter's
> > > mistaken inclusion of the instruction is a pretty pointed indication
> that
> > > hands other than Kinbote's were at work on the project. (That is, that
> the
> > > poem and commentary have a reality outside of Kinbote's delusion.)
> > >
> > > Don Corathers
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> > >> Date: 2003/07/14 Mon AM 11:36:04 EDT
> > >> To: The Whole Sick Crew <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
> > >>
> > >>> He says the poem has been proofed, if not the
> > >>> commentary.
> > >>>
> > >>> And the very next sentence: "insert before a
> > >>> professional." Followed by "A professional ..."
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, I find this a very puzzling item, and it seems to be a "clue"
to
> > >> *something.* Did the proofreader who looked at the poem also look at
> the
> > >> foreword, but Kinbote, being rather in a tizzy, failed to note a
> comment? Or
> > >> is it a note by Kinbote to himself that was accidentally retained?
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:28:04 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 20:39, jbor wrote:
> > In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
this
> > paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
> >
> > Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> > sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> > willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> > commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> > has carefully rechecked [...]
> >
> > Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
coincidental
> > typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
>
>
> It's like this in my 1963 Lancer paperback.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:40:17 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> on 15/7/03 12:48 AM, Malignd wrote:
>
> >> Nick is a bond trader, a bond trader who writes like
> >> this:
> >
> > "We walked through a high hallway into a bright
> > rosy-colored space, fragilely bound into the house by
> > French windows at either end. The windows were ajar
> > and gleaming white against the fresh grass outside
> > that seemed to grow a little way into the house. A
> > breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one
> > end and out the other like pale flags, twisting them
> > up toward the frosted wedding cake of the ceiling --
> > and then rippled over the wine-colored rug, making a
> > shadow on it as wind does on the sea."
> >
> > The point is that a reader isn't intended to mull or
> > worry this, to bring it into the novel. Rather, he
> > suspends disbelief and reads on.
>
> Sure (except, to make this point, you, or Rorty, *are* mulling over and
> worrying about it). The fact that he's a bond trader doesn't automatically
> preclude him from having a way with descriptive adjectives, adverbs and
> imagery, of course.
>
> > But Pale Fire is a book in part about writers and the
> > quality of their writing, and so a good reader doesn't
> > so readily suspend disbelief when he notices that the
> > mad Kinbote writes like Nabokov.
>
> But a "bad" reader does?! Is Kinbote totally "mad", or just occasionally
> deluded? (Eg. How would he have kept his job at Wordsmith if altogether
> insane?) This aside, many great artists and writers were cot-cases. And,
> does he really write exactly "like Nabokov"? There are quite a few
> assumptions made in this and I'm still not sure that I see it as a valid
> argument.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:38:34 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 17:17, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
> >
> > It seems a general consensus that the town depicted in Pale Fire
> > is actually Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University where VN taught
> > (and Pynchon attended).
> >
> >
> > Excellent job on the notes and summary, Jasper.
> >
> > It's interesting (and not real surprising) that Nabokov took some pains
to confuse the geography of New Wye. Several of his sparing uses of real
place names seem to seek to place the town in Virginia rather than upstate
New York. We're told early that it's at the latitude of Palermo (which is
almost directly on the 38th parallel, as is Charlottesville). It's 400 train
miles from New York City, and an alternative to taking the direct or express
train from New York is to go to Washington and catch the local, not a very
good way to get to Ithaca. It's reasonably close to Roanoke (where Jack Grey
apparently escaped from custody and hitchhiked to New Wye).
> >
> > Charlottesville, of course, is the home of the University of Virginia,
founded by Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a wordsmith himself.
> >
> > I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
>
>
> VN is on record saying Wordsmith is farther to the South than any of the
> institutions he'd been associated with.
>
> The flora and fauna are more southern he also said.
>
> I could never see why people thought it was like Cornell. Not nearly as
> distinguished.
>
> Aside from the Cornell Wordsworth collection hint.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:46:04 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 21:18, Don Corathers wrote:
> > The Vintage reads the same way.
> >
> > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
been
> > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Of course there was that calling Finnegans Wake Finnigan's Wake..
> (someplace early in the commentary or maybe inthe foreword)
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:50:19 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 21:40, jbor wrote:
> > on 15/7/03 12:48 AM, Malignd wrote:
> >
> > >> Nick is a bond trader, a bond trader who writes like
> > >> this:
> > >
> > > "We walked through a high hallway into a bright
> > > rosy-colored space, fragilely bound into the house by
> > > French windows at either end. The windows were ajar
> > > and gleaming white against the fresh grass outside
> > > that seemed to grow a little way into the house. A
> > > breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one
> > > end and out the other like pale flags, twisting them
> > > up toward the frosted wedding cake of the ceiling --
> > > and then rippled over the wine-colored rug, making a
> > > shadow on it as wind does on the sea."
> > >
> > > The point is that a reader isn't intended to mull or
> > > worry this, to bring it into the novel. Rather, he
> > > suspends disbelief and reads on.
> >
> > Sure (except, to make this point, you, or Rorty, *are* mulling over and
> > worrying about it). The fact that he's a bond trader doesn't
automatically
> > preclude him from having a way with descriptive adjectives, adverbs and
> > imagery, of course.
>
> Besides he wasn't a very good bond trader, was he? Not a very happy one.
> Just something he went into as was customary for his social set. he was
> Daisy's cousin.
>
> P.
> >
> > > But Pale Fire is a book in part about writers and the
> > > quality of their writing, and so a good reader doesn't
> > > so readily suspend disbelief when he notices that the
> > > mad Kinbote writes like Nabokov.
> >
> > But a "bad" reader does?! Is Kinbote totally "mad", or just occasionally
> > deluded? (Eg. How would he have kept his job at Wordsmith if altogether
> > insane?) This aside, many great artists and writers were cot-cases. And,
> > does he really write exactly "like Nabokov"? There are quite a few
> > assumptions made in this and I'm still not sure that I see it as a valid
> > argument.
> >
> > best
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:56:05 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> on 15/7/03 11:18 AM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > The Vintage reads the same way.
> >
> > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
been
> > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Yes, I agree on both points, and it supports the notion that Kinbote was
in
> a bit of a rush to get the thing to press.
>
> > Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo (I
> > think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote to
> > have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request if
the
> > request came in the same communication from Frank as the acknowledgement
> > that the proof had been returned.
>
> Yes. I think the idea of a separate note from Kinbote, maybe a telegram,
> with the extra sentence and instruction, after Frank's acknowledgement and
> request, is logical. Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer knew
> where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
was
> an instruction about where to insert it.
>
> best
>
> > Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> > though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling between
New
> > York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
five
> > sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
layout.)
> > Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately. Or,
> > perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on the
> > proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why he
had
> > to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating the
> > position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 22:01:19 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 10:44, Jasper Fidget wrote:
> > I've added some terms from Toby G. Levy's post. All the definitions are
> > taken from the most recent edition of the OED unless otherwise noted.
>
>
> VN's favorite dictionary was supposed to have been Webster's Second
> International. Anybody got an old copy lying around. I've only got the
> Third International.
>
>
> . . . .
>
> >
> > Page 13:
> > A poem in four cantos, a parody of Eliot's Four Quartets.
>
>
> Might it be an antidote to Eliot rather than a parody?
>
> Something for people who like a coherent story and good rhymes?
>
> Is Eliot still revered today as he was in the 50s.
>
>
>
> But Shade is a
> > Pope scholar, so Pope's Dunciad, a poem in four books with a preface,
the
> > poem, a commentary and notes.
> >
> > Page 13:
> > Birds: Shade's parents were ornithologists (ln 72)
> > waxwing(1), pheasant(24), grouse(25), mockingbird(63), etc
> >
> > Page 13:
> > A parhelion is a bright spot on a solar halo (parhelic circle) caused by
ice
> > crystals in the atmosphere. Parhelia can be colorful (resembling a
rainbow,
> > for which there are other references in PF) and symmetrically spaced.
>
>
> For what it's worth the Third International adds "also called mock sun,
> sun dog.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 (1) "More is Less"
>
> Actually ...
>
> "Have you wondered who originally said 'Less is more'?
>
>
> "Both Mies van der Rohe and Buckminster Fuller adopted
> it as a way of life--you can see it demonstrated in
> Mies' buildings and Bucky's geodesic domes--but they
> got it from a poem.
>
> "It's said by the painter Andrea del Sarto (who was a
> real person--1486-1531), in Robert Browning's 1855
> poem by that name. You'll recognize another well-known
> line a little later in the same poem....
>
> ...I could count twenty such ...
> Who strive ...
> To paint a little thing like that you smeared
> Carelessly passing with your robes afloat--
> Yet do much less ... --so much less!
> Well, less is more, Lucrezia: I am judged.
> There burns a truer light of God in them,
> In their vexed beating stuffed and stopped-up brain,
> Heart, or whate'er else, than goes on to prompt
> This low-pulsed forthright craftsman's hand of mine.
> Their works drop groundward, but themselves, I know,
> Reach many a time a heaven that's shut to me,
> Enter and take their place there sure enough,
> Though they come back and cannot tell the world.
> ... Somebody remarks
> Morello's outline there is wrongly traced,
> His hue mistaken; what of that? or else,
> Rightly traced and well ordered; what of that?
> Speak as they please, what does the mountain care?
> Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
> Or what's a heaven for? ...
>
> http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/lessismore/ls_s_mor.html
>
> But given Pynchon's longstanding interest in
> romanticism, modernism and G. Orwell's 1984 (and I am
> indeed counting that "slow learner" as a citation),
> you are nonetheless BOTH correct, sirs, and then some.
> It's a floor wax AND a desert topping ...
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: PF/Borges
>
>
http://textz.gnutenberg.net/textz/borges_jorge_luis_pierre_menard_author_of_don_quixote.txt
>
> - --- cfalbert <calbert@hslboxmaster.com> wrote:
> > and I also emphatically recommend reading Borges'
> > "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" - only takes
> > about 15 minutes.....
> >
> > Someone was kind enough to link to a full text
> > version, but I can't seem to find either the post or
> > the link.....
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:10:29 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> > Of course there was that calling Finnegans Wake Finnigan's Wake..
> > (someplace early in the commentary or maybe inthe foreword)
> >
>
>
> It's in the commentary for Line 12 (Vintage, p. 76).
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:06:56 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> jbor:
>
> >Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer knew
> >where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
was
> >an instruction about where to insert it.
>
> If you worked with graphic designers you wouldn't have any trouble
believing
> this could happen.
>
> D.C.
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor@bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
>
> > on 15/7/03 11:18 AM, Don Corathers wrote:
> >
> > > The Vintage reads the same way.
> > >
> > > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
> been
> > > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
> >
> > Yes, I agree on both points, and it supports the notion that Kinbote was
> in
> > a bit of a rush to get the thing to press.
> >
> > > Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo
(I
> > > think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote
to
> > > have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request
if
> the
> > > request came in the same communication from Frank as the
acknowledgement
> > > that the proof had been returned.
> >
> > Yes. I think the idea of a separate note from Kinbote, maybe a telegram,
> > with the extra sentence and instruction, after Frank's acknowledgement
and
> > request, is logical. Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer
knew
> > where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
> was
> > an instruction about where to insert it.
> >
> > best
> >
> > > Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> > > though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling
between
> New
> > > York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
> five
> > > sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
> layout.)
> > > Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately.
Or,
> > > perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on
the
> > > proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why
he
> had
> > > to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating
the
> > > position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3410
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3410
>
> pynchon-l-digest Monday, July 14 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3410
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:53 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> It seems a general consensus that the town depicted in Pale Fire
> is actually Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University where VN taught
> (and Pynchon attended).
>
>
> Excellent job on the notes and summary, Jasper.
>
> It's interesting (and not real surprising) that Nabokov took some pains to
confuse the geography of New Wye. Several of his sparing uses of real place
names seem to seek to place the town in Virginia rather than upstate New
York. We're told early that it's at the latitude of Palermo (which is almost
directly on the 38th parallel, as is Charlottesville). It's 400 train miles
from New York City, and an alternative to taking the direct or express train
from New York is to go to Washington and catch the local, not a very good
way to get to Ithaca. It's reasonably close to Roanoke (where Jack Grey
apparently escaped from custody and hitchhiked to New Wye).
>
> Charlottesville, of course, is the home of the University of Virginia,
founded by Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a wordsmith himself.
>
> I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
>
> Don Corathers
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> > I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
> Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
>
> Cornell is a very big University. I think the New Wye college portrays a
much
> smaller place.
>
> David Morris
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:39:54 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
this
> paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
>
> Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> has carefully rechecked [...]
>
> Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
coincidental
> typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
>
> I think your first observation is correct. "Insert before a professional"
is
> Kinbote's instruction about where to insert the preceding sentence, the
note
> which "good old Frank", no doubt covering himself against responsibility
for
> the "mistakes" (a hilarious understatement) in Kinbote's commentary, has
> asked him to include.
>
> The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
(only,
> I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
not
> have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
>
> best
>
>
> on 15/7/03 2:01 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess there are at least two ways to reconstruct how the "Insert
> > before a professional" interjection got in the text.
> >
> > My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of a
proofing note
> > to insert the word "professional" before the word "proofreader."
> >
> > It makes more sense as a note that was set in type by mistake at the
bottom of
> > the text insert, which is the preceding sentence: "Frank has
acknowledged the
> > safe return..."
> >
> > A much neater explanation. The inserted sentence is something that
_would_
> > have to be inserted, the product of a note from the publisher to the
editor
> > after a review of the galley proofs.
> >
> > My take on this is still that it shows there was a process of preparing
the
> > manuscript for publication under way. Seems to me the (fictional)
typesetter's
> > mistaken inclusion of the instruction is a pretty pointed indication
that
> > hands other than Kinbote's were at work on the project. (That is, that
the
> > poem and commentary have a reality outside of Kinbote's delusion.)
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> >> Date: 2003/07/14 Mon AM 11:36:04 EDT
> >> To: The Whole Sick Crew <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> >> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
> >>
> >>> He says the poem has been proofed, if not the
> >>> commentary.
> >>>
> >>> And the very next sentence: "insert before a
> >>> professional." Followed by "A professional ..."
> >>
> >> Yeah, I find this a very puzzling item, and it seems to be a "clue" to
> >> *something.* Did the proofreader who looked at the poem also look at
the
> >> foreword, but Kinbote, being rather in a tizzy, failed to note a
comment? Or
> >> is it a note by Kinbote to himself that was accidentally retained?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:01:12 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> >> I'm inclined to reject this idea. I don't think the
> >> poem is "first-rate" in itself. I do think it's a
> >> first-rate parody of a type of pseudo-Eliotesque
> >> bombast, however. In that sense, it's Nabokov's poem,
> >> rather than Shade's, which might be called
> >> "first-rate".
>
> and
>
> >> <<... and my stance on this is that it is Nabokov's
> >> poem, as parody and satire, which is a far greater
> >> achievement than Shade's, *even though it's exactly
> >> the same poem ...>>
>
> on 15/7/03 12:40 AM, Malignd at malignd@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It's interesting to consider the idea that VN in
> > service of the novel Pale Fire, made the poem Pale
> > Fire second rate, if only in specific ways; i.e., ways
> > that invest Shade's character and frame him in a
> > particular way. One might say (although, it states
> > the case too crudely; nevertheless--) that the quality
> > of the poem as VN's is inversely proportional to the
> > quality of the poem as Shade's.
> >
> > But a question, then: if VN can, because of the
> > context, be applauded for intentional weaknesses
> > within the poem, can one not say the same about Shade?
> > Could Shade deliberately muck about in his own poem
> > in response to his own aesthetic demands, e.g., a
> > rigorously honest self-revelation, say, to
> > intentionally assume a more ordinary voice, a less
> > refined talent than he's capable of, much as a
> > novelist might, writing in the first person?
> >
> > More broadly, can any poet elevate, by his own
> > insisted-upon context and point of view, something
> > that would otherwise be deemed second-rate? Could
> > Shade himself not create the context that turns his
> > Brillo box of a poem into art? I think the answer
> > must be yes, if we're going to allow that that's true
> > for VN's poem within the novel Pale Fire.
>
> I've put forward Pope's 'The Rape of the Lock' as a touchstone for this.
My
> point is that Nabokov's context (and thus his purpose) is obviously quite
> different to Shade's. It is not his daughter who committed suicide because
> she was stood up at the outset of a blind date, and it is not he who
> suffered a heart attack at the "Crashaw Club" while giving a talk on "'Why
> Poetry is Meaningful to Us'", thought he glimpsed Heaven whilst
unconscious,
> and who then went in search of "Mrs Z.", who he believed had had the same
> vision but discovered that the newspaper report on her near-death
experience
> had misprinted "fountain" for "mountain". This is all quite funny stuff in
> itself, but that Shade, a supposedly respected poet if not a major one,
has
> used it as the substance for an overblown verse epic meditating on life,
> death and art, is even funnier. Much of the comedy of it, I find, is at
> Shade's expense, though there are moments of true pathos and of stylistic
> prowess in the poem as well. (I don't think it's a matter of the quality
of
> the poem being "inversely proportional" at all.)
>
> I find it difficult to believe that Shade would intentionally write a
> "second-rate" poem (and it's not so much a question of it being
> "second-rate", which is a subjective call made by the reader, as it is of
> him composing and presenting such a mix of ridiculous, banal and
apparently
> tragic personal material in this manner), certainly not one in this style,
> of this length, and on these subjects and themes. That Nabokov has him
write
> it makes all the difference. As I said, I think Nabokov satirises Shade
> (through the poem and through the other components of the text), and I
think
> the poem itself is intended (by Nabokov, though not by Shade) as a parody.
>
> There's one other point you've made which I'd contest. You wrote of
>
> > the membrane
> > between Nabokov's novel and the artifact that it
> > contains (and that happens, the artifact, to coincide
> > word for word with the entirety of Nabokov's novel).
>
> I don't think this is correct. Nabokov's novel incorporates a dedication
to
> VИra, his wife, and (arguably, at least) the Epigraph from Boswell's _Life
> of Samuel Johnson_, which are outside "the artifact that it contains".
>
> best
>
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> on 15/7/03 10:39 AM, jbor wrote:
>
> > The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> > returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> > wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> > inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
(only,
> > I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
not
> > have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> > Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> > incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
>
> The "professional proofreader" would have to have done the check on the
poem
> before the whole manuscript was sent off to Frank.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:18:10 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> The Vintage reads the same way.
>
> I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had been
> sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo (I
> think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote to
> have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request if
the
> request came in the same communication from Frank as the acknowledgement
> that the proof had been returned. Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling between
New
> York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
five
> sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
layout.)
> Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately. Or,
> perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on the
> proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why he
had
> to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating the
> position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor@bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
>
> > In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
> this
> > paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
> >
> > Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> > sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> > willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> > commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> > has carefully rechecked [...]
> >
> > Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
> coincidental
> > typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
> >
> > I think your first observation is correct. "Insert before a
professional"
> is
> > Kinbote's instruction about where to insert the preceding sentence, the
> note
> > which "good old Frank", no doubt covering himself against responsibility
> for
> > the "mistakes" (a hilarious understatement) in Kinbote's commentary, has
> > asked him to include.
> >
> > The process I see is that the manuscript went to Frank, the galleys were
> > returned to Kinbote with Frank's request to add the disclaimer, Kinbote
> > wrote the additional sentence and the direction as to where it should be
> > inserted, the "professional proofreader" checked the text of the poem
> (only,
> > I think) in the galleys and found "trivial misprints" (which may or may
> not
> > have been "trivial", and which may or may not have been corrected by
> > Kinbote), and then it all went back to the printer, who mistakenly
> > incorporated Kinbote's direction along with the additional sentence.
> >
> > best
> >
> >
> > on 15/7/03 2:01 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, I guess there are at least two ways to reconstruct how the
"Insert
> > > before a professional" interjection got in the text.
> > >
> > > My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of a
> proofing note
> > > to insert the word "professional" before the word "proofreader."
> > >
> > > It makes more sense as a note that was set in type by mistake at the
> bottom of
> > > the text insert, which is the preceding sentence: "Frank has
> acknowledged the
> > > safe return..."
> > >
> > > A much neater explanation. The inserted sentence is something that
> _would_
> > > have to be inserted, the product of a note from the publisher to the
> editor
> > > after a review of the galley proofs.
> > >
> > > My take on this is still that it shows there was a process of
preparing
> the
> > > manuscript for publication under way. Seems to me the (fictional)
> typesetter's
> > > mistaken inclusion of the instruction is a pretty pointed indication
> that
> > > hands other than Kinbote's were at work on the project. (That is, that
> the
> > > poem and commentary have a reality outside of Kinbote's delusion.)
> > >
> > > Don Corathers
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> > >> Date: 2003/07/14 Mon AM 11:36:04 EDT
> > >> To: The Whole Sick Crew <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
> > >>
> > >>> He says the poem has been proofed, if not the
> > >>> commentary.
> > >>>
> > >>> And the very next sentence: "insert before a
> > >>> professional." Followed by "A professional ..."
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, I find this a very puzzling item, and it seems to be a "clue"
to
> > >> *something.* Did the proofreader who looked at the poem also look at
> the
> > >> foreword, but Kinbote, being rather in a tizzy, failed to note a
> comment? Or
> > >> is it a note by Kinbote to himself that was accidentally retained?
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:28:04 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 20:39, jbor wrote:
> > In my copy there's a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence of
this
> > paragraph as well. The sequence of sentences reads as follows:
> >
> > Frank has acknowledged the safe return of the galleys I had been
> > sent here and has asked me to mention in my Preface -- and this I
> > willingly do -- that I alone am responsible for any mistakes in my
> > commentary. Insert before a professional. A professional proofreader
> > has carefully rechecked [...]
> >
> > Is the solecism of "the galleys I had been sent here" merely a
coincidental
> > typo in the Penguin edition, or is it the standard?
>
>
> It's like this in my 1963 Lancer paperback.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:40:17 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> on 15/7/03 12:48 AM, Malignd wrote:
>
> >> Nick is a bond trader, a bond trader who writes like
> >> this:
> >
> > "We walked through a high hallway into a bright
> > rosy-colored space, fragilely bound into the house by
> > French windows at either end. The windows were ajar
> > and gleaming white against the fresh grass outside
> > that seemed to grow a little way into the house. A
> > breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one
> > end and out the other like pale flags, twisting them
> > up toward the frosted wedding cake of the ceiling --
> > and then rippled over the wine-colored rug, making a
> > shadow on it as wind does on the sea."
> >
> > The point is that a reader isn't intended to mull or
> > worry this, to bring it into the novel. Rather, he
> > suspends disbelief and reads on.
>
> Sure (except, to make this point, you, or Rorty, *are* mulling over and
> worrying about it). The fact that he's a bond trader doesn't automatically
> preclude him from having a way with descriptive adjectives, adverbs and
> imagery, of course.
>
> > But Pale Fire is a book in part about writers and the
> > quality of their writing, and so a good reader doesn't
> > so readily suspend disbelief when he notices that the
> > mad Kinbote writes like Nabokov.
>
> But a "bad" reader does?! Is Kinbote totally "mad", or just occasionally
> deluded? (Eg. How would he have kept his job at Wordsmith if altogether
> insane?) This aside, many great artists and writers were cot-cases. And,
> does he really write exactly "like Nabokov"? There are quite a few
> assumptions made in this and I'm still not sure that I see it as a valid
> argument.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:38:34 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 17:17, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
> >
> > It seems a general consensus that the town depicted in Pale Fire
> > is actually Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University where VN taught
> > (and Pynchon attended).
> >
> >
> > Excellent job on the notes and summary, Jasper.
> >
> > It's interesting (and not real surprising) that Nabokov took some pains
to confuse the geography of New Wye. Several of his sparing uses of real
place names seem to seek to place the town in Virginia rather than upstate
New York. We're told early that it's at the latitude of Palermo (which is
almost directly on the 38th parallel, as is Charlottesville). It's 400 train
miles from New York City, and an alternative to taking the direct or express
train from New York is to go to Washington and catch the local, not a very
good way to get to Ithaca. It's reasonably close to Roanoke (where Jack Grey
apparently escaped from custody and hitchhiked to New Wye).
> >
> > Charlottesville, of course, is the home of the University of Virginia,
founded by Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a wordsmith himself.
> >
> > I'm not arguing that the college and town aren't modeled on Cornell and
Ithaca, but why the elaborate dodge to direct our attention elsewhere?
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
>
>
> VN is on record saying Wordsmith is farther to the South than any of the
> institutions he'd been associated with.
>
> The flora and fauna are more southern he also said.
>
> I could never see why people thought it was like Cornell. Not nearly as
> distinguished.
>
> Aside from the Cornell Wordsworth collection hint.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:46:04 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 21:18, Don Corathers wrote:
> > The Vintage reads the same way.
> >
> > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
been
> > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Of course there was that calling Finnegans Wake Finnigan's Wake..
> (someplace early in the commentary or maybe inthe foreword)
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 21:50:19 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 21:40, jbor wrote:
> > on 15/7/03 12:48 AM, Malignd wrote:
> >
> > >> Nick is a bond trader, a bond trader who writes like
> > >> this:
> > >
> > > "We walked through a high hallway into a bright
> > > rosy-colored space, fragilely bound into the house by
> > > French windows at either end. The windows were ajar
> > > and gleaming white against the fresh grass outside
> > > that seemed to grow a little way into the house. A
> > > breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one
> > > end and out the other like pale flags, twisting them
> > > up toward the frosted wedding cake of the ceiling --
> > > and then rippled over the wine-colored rug, making a
> > > shadow on it as wind does on the sea."
> > >
> > > The point is that a reader isn't intended to mull or
> > > worry this, to bring it into the novel. Rather, he
> > > suspends disbelief and reads on.
> >
> > Sure (except, to make this point, you, or Rorty, *are* mulling over and
> > worrying about it). The fact that he's a bond trader doesn't
automatically
> > preclude him from having a way with descriptive adjectives, adverbs and
> > imagery, of course.
>
> Besides he wasn't a very good bond trader, was he? Not a very happy one.
> Just something he went into as was customary for his social set. he was
> Daisy's cousin.
>
> P.
> >
> > > But Pale Fire is a book in part about writers and the
> > > quality of their writing, and so a good reader doesn't
> > > so readily suspend disbelief when he notices that the
> > > mad Kinbote writes like Nabokov.
> >
> > But a "bad" reader does?! Is Kinbote totally "mad", or just occasionally
> > deluded? (Eg. How would he have kept his job at Wordsmith if altogether
> > insane?) This aside, many great artists and writers were cot-cases. And,
> > does he really write exactly "like Nabokov"? There are quite a few
> > assumptions made in this and I'm still not sure that I see it as a valid
> > argument.
> >
> > best
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:56:05 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> on 15/7/03 11:18 AM, Don Corathers wrote:
>
> > The Vintage reads the same way.
> >
> > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
been
> > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
>
> Yes, I agree on both points, and it supports the notion that Kinbote was
in
> a bit of a rush to get the thing to press.
>
> > Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo (I
> > think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote to
> > have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request if
the
> > request came in the same communication from Frank as the acknowledgement
> > that the proof had been returned.
>
> Yes. I think the idea of a separate note from Kinbote, maybe a telegram,
> with the extra sentence and instruction, after Frank's acknowledgement and
> request, is logical. Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer knew
> where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
was
> an instruction about where to insert it.
>
> best
>
> > Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> > though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling between
New
> > York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
five
> > sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
layout.)
> > Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately. Or,
> > perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on the
> > proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why he
had
> > to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating the
> > position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 14 Jul 2003 22:01:19 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Notes (1)
>
> On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 10:44, Jasper Fidget wrote:
> > I've added some terms from Toby G. Levy's post. All the definitions are
> > taken from the most recent edition of the OED unless otherwise noted.
>
>
> VN's favorite dictionary was supposed to have been Webster's Second
> International. Anybody got an old copy lying around. I've only got the
> Third International.
>
>
> . . . .
>
> >
> > Page 13:
> > A poem in four cantos, a parody of Eliot's Four Quartets.
>
>
> Might it be an antidote to Eliot rather than a parody?
>
> Something for people who like a coherent story and good rhymes?
>
> Is Eliot still revered today as he was in the 50s.
>
>
>
> But Shade is a
> > Pope scholar, so Pope's Dunciad, a poem in four books with a preface,
the
> > poem, a commentary and notes.
> >
> > Page 13:
> > Birds: Shade's parents were ornithologists (ln 72)
> > waxwing(1), pheasant(24), grouse(25), mockingbird(63), etc
> >
> > Page 13:
> > A parhelion is a bright spot on a solar halo (parhelic circle) caused by
ice
> > crystals in the atmosphere. Parhelia can be colorful (resembling a
rainbow,
> > for which there are other references in PF) and symmetrically spaced.
>
>
> For what it's worth the Third International adds "also called mock sun,
> sun dog.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 (1) "More is Less"
>
> Actually ...
>
> "Have you wondered who originally said 'Less is more'?
>
>
> "Both Mies van der Rohe and Buckminster Fuller adopted
> it as a way of life--you can see it demonstrated in
> Mies' buildings and Bucky's geodesic domes--but they
> got it from a poem.
>
> "It's said by the painter Andrea del Sarto (who was a
> real person--1486-1531), in Robert Browning's 1855
> poem by that name. You'll recognize another well-known
> line a little later in the same poem....
>
> ...I could count twenty such ...
> Who strive ...
> To paint a little thing like that you smeared
> Carelessly passing with your robes afloat--
> Yet do much less ... --so much less!
> Well, less is more, Lucrezia: I am judged.
> There burns a truer light of God in them,
> In their vexed beating stuffed and stopped-up brain,
> Heart, or whate'er else, than goes on to prompt
> This low-pulsed forthright craftsman's hand of mine.
> Their works drop groundward, but themselves, I know,
> Reach many a time a heaven that's shut to me,
> Enter and take their place there sure enough,
> Though they come back and cannot tell the world.
> ... Somebody remarks
> Morello's outline there is wrongly traced,
> His hue mistaken; what of that? or else,
> Rightly traced and well ordered; what of that?
> Speak as they please, what does the mountain care?
> Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
> Or what's a heaven for? ...
>
> http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/lessismore/ls_s_mor.html
>
> But given Pynchon's longstanding interest in
> romanticism, modernism and G. Orwell's 1984 (and I am
> indeed counting that "slow learner" as a citation),
> you are nonetheless BOTH correct, sirs, and then some.
> It's a floor wax AND a desert topping ...
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: PF/Borges
>
>
http://textz.gnutenberg.net/textz/borges_jorge_luis_pierre_menard_author_of_don_quixote.txt
>
> - --- cfalbert <calbert@hslboxmaster.com> wrote:
> > and I also emphatically recommend reading Borges'
> > "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" - only takes
> > about 15 minutes.....
> >
> > Someone was kind enough to link to a full text
> > version, but I can't seem to find either the post or
> > the link.....
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:10:29 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> > Of course there was that calling Finnegans Wake Finnigan's Wake..
> > (someplace early in the commentary or maybe inthe foreword)
> >
>
>
> It's in the commentary for Line 12 (Vintage, p. 76).
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:06:56 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
> jbor:
>
> >Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer knew
> >where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
was
> >an instruction about where to insert it.
>
> If you worked with graphic designers you wouldn't have any trouble
believing
> this could happen.
>
> D.C.
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor@bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Foreword - Summary / Commentary (3)
>
>
> > on 15/7/03 11:18 AM, Don Corathers wrote:
> >
> > > The Vintage reads the same way.
> > >
> > > I don't think it would be that unusual to hear "galleys [that] I had
> been
> > > sent here" in conversational speech, but yes, it is an odd and awkward
> > > construction for a writer as careful as Kinbote.
> >
> > Yes, I agree on both points, and it supports the notion that Kinbote was
> in
> > a bit of a rush to get the thing to press.
> >
> > > Re the sequence of events with the proof and corrections: James Kyllo
(I
> > > think) observed earlier today that it would be impossible for Kinbote
to
> > > have made a note on the proof in response to the publisher's request
if
> the
> > > request came in the same communication from Frank as the
acknowledgement
> > > that the proof had been returned.
> >
> > Yes. I think the idea of a separate note from Kinbote, maybe a telegram,
> > with the extra sentence and instruction, after Frank's acknowledgement
and
> > request, is logical. Though, there is the dilemma of how the printer
knew
> > where to insert the sentence if he missed the fact that the instruction
> was
> > an instruction about where to insert it.
> >
> > best
> >
> > > Which is certainly true. It is possible,
> > > though, that there was more than one iteration of proof cycling
between
> New
> > > York and Utana. (On the magazine I work for, it usually takes us about
> five
> > > sets of proof to get an article from edited manuscript to finished
> layout.)
> > > Or that the poem, commentary, and foreword were galleyed separately.
Or,
> > > perhaps most probable, that Kinbote didn't write the instruction on
the
> > > proof itself but sent it in a separate note, which would explain why
he
> had
> > > to write out the instruction for its placement instead of indicating
the
> > > position by drawing a line, as one would do when marking up a galley.
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3410