Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3425 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:17:52 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF--status of the two author theory
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Don Corathers
> >
> > I think the short answer is no.
> >
> > The author of the foreword takes pains to present evidence that the poem
> > was
> > written by Shade, describing the physical manuscript in careful detail.
> > There are also remarks from Professor Hurley, others in the WU English
> > Department, and Shade's agent that seem to confirm the existence of a
work
> > by John Shade and Charles Kinbote's contract to edit it and write a
> > commentary.
> >
> > It seems one of the decisions a reader has to make in trying to sort out
> > the
> > novel is what standard of evidence to apply. These standards change from
> > page to page as the assumptions underneath them shift and flow. For
> > example,
> > if you believe the poem and commentary were published (or at least
> > intended
> > for publication by the writer), you might be inclined to give more
weight
> > to
> > the comments of other living people included in the text on the theory
> > that
> > their response to their own portrayals would have some deterrent value
> > against fabrications. But of course we have no way of knowing what Sybil
> > and
> > Hurley might have said after reading the book--maybe one of them is
> > writing
> > a letter to the New York Times Book Review right now.
> >
> > Then there's that "your favorite." Still a puzzle. At the time the
> > foreword
> > was written, only the recently late Shade, Sybil, Kinbote, and
presumably
> > one or two people in the publisher's office knew the poem and were
> > qualified
> > to have a favorite canto. If we can illuminate this question from
evidence
> > later in the book just for a moment, there's not very much second person
> > address in here. Outside of conversations reproduced in the commentary,
> > the
> > only place I can remember it happening is when Shade speaks directly to
> > Sybil in the poem.
> >
> > The other aspect of the foreword that relates to the Single Bullet
Theory
> > is
> > the general impression that that Kinbote boy is not quite right in the
> > head,
> > but I'll be damned if I could say which side of the ledger that goes on.
> >
> > D.C.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> An interesting post to the N-List:
>
>
> http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=nabokv-l&P=R36690
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: James Veitch <mailto:james@jveitch.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >
> > Dear Mr (soon to be Dr?) Olson,
> >
> > What a great abstract! This is exactly what I am interested in. Nabokov
> > anticipates his critics (most clearly in 'Pale Fire') and forces terms
> > such as the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic and the intradiegetic-
> > homodiegetic to become instantly redundant. Rimmon comments (on
Sebastian
> > Knight, where the interpenetration is impossible to unravel) that ▄as if
> > to complicate matters, the different levels are made analogous to each
> > other, sometimes so much that they seem identical and the borders
between
> > them are often blurred by the penetration of one level into another. ╧
> >
> > What intrigues me, however, is the critical need (still) to 'unravel'
the
> > novel into its parts. This is beautifully impossible in 'Sebastian
> > Knight,' though that does not stop critics trying. I've even noticed
this
> > in the excerpts I've read of the 'Pale Fire' reading; a need to discover
> > an empirical solution...what 'actually happens.' But like Humbert
Humbert
> > who manufactures dreams for his Freudian doctors, 'pure classics in
style
> > (which make them the dream-extortionists, dream and wake up shrieking),'
> > Nabokov anticipates the critical response and makes it impossible.
> >
> > Here's an example that I think, partly, sums up a form of 'Pale Fire'
> > criticism. In the index of Pale Fire, the notation under ▄Lass╧ reads
▄see
> > Mass,╧ the note for ▄Mass╧ orders the reader to ▄see Male,╧ then ▄Male╧
> > says ▄see Word Golf╧ (the reader starts to get the joke) and ▄Word Golf╧
> > leads full circle giving the notation ▄see Lass.╧ Thus, through
literally
> > searching for an answer and elucidation, the reader is lead in a circle
of
> > maddening ▄word golf,╧ that parallels the vain critical search for a
> > definite reality in 'Pale Fire.' It's easy to do though, and it's easy
to
> > be found at the end of the novel, still spinning from 'Lass,' to 'mass'
to
> > 'male' etc. Yet this form of 'paper chase' criticism is surely
misguided;
> > a wonderful, cunning diversion. True engagement with the novel, I think,
> > occurs when one considers the effect of these multiple and overlapped
> > narrative layers; when the reader accepts the plurality of realities and
> > disallows one to take precedence over the other; allowing an examination
> > of the effect this multiplicity has upon the reader, how it possibly
> > comments upon art, artifice, identity and reality.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > Best Wishes
> > James
> >
>
>
> My take on this idea is that PF ultimately resembles one of those Escher
> prints (I'm thinking for instance of the one with the cloister and the
> stairs that twist dimensions through perspective), where once a stable
> perspective of one plane is achieved, the other planes are made impossible
> since each plane or perspective overlaps or bleeds into another. As the
eye
> of the viewer -- or the mind of the reader -- shifts perspective, the
object
> is made to transform. (As Mr. Veitch points out, the game of Word Golf
> played in the Index might reveal a simple way in which this transformative
> process occurs.) We will probably come to a better understanding of this
as
> we get deeper, but I'm wondering now, if this proves to be the case, then
is
> PF essentially unstable? A paradox? Is it essentially fluid? If it is
the
> activity of the reader in attempting to come to a complete
understanding --
> or what somebody has called a Grand Unified Theory -- of this novel that
> causes it to transform, then what implications does that have regarding
its
> relationship with its audience? Is it Schrodinger's Novel?
>
> Jasper
>
> Subject: WOW!!!! Pynchon-Nabokov Link!!!!!!!!
>> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:14:37 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: status of the two author theory
>
> on 19/7/03 7:17 AM, Jasper Fidget wrote:
>
> > An interesting post to the N-List:
> >
> >
> > http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=nabokv-l&P=R36690
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: James Veitch <mailto:james@jveitch.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >>
> >> Dear Mr (soon to be Dr?) Olson,
> >>
> >> What a great abstract! This is exactly what I am interested in. Nabokov
> >> anticipates his critics (most clearly in 'Pale Fire') and forces terms
> >> such as the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic and the intradiegetic-
> >> homodiegetic to become instantly redundant. Rimmon comments (on
Sebastian
> >> Knight, where the interpenetration is impossible to unravel) that ▒as
if
> >> to complicate matters, the different levels are made analogous to each
> >> other, sometimes so much that they seem identical and the borders
between
> >> them are often blurred by the penetration of one level into another. 1
> >>
> >> What intrigues me, however, is the critical need (still) to 'unravel'
the
> >> novel into its parts. This is beautifully impossible in 'Sebastian
> >> Knight,' though that does not stop critics trying. I've even noticed
this
> >> in the excerpts I've read of the 'Pale Fire' reading; a need to
discover
> >> an empirical solution...what 'actually happens.' But like Humbert
Humbert
> >> who manufactures dreams for his Freudian doctors, 'pure classics in
style
> >> (which make them the dream-extortionists, dream and wake up
shrieking),'
> >> Nabokov anticipates the critical response and makes it impossible.
> >>
> >> Here's an example that I think, partly, sums up a form of 'Pale Fire'
> >> criticism. In the index of Pale Fire, the notation under ▒Lass1 reads
▒see
> >> Mass,1 the note for ▒Mass1 orders the reader to ▒see Male,1 then ▒Male1
> >> says ▒see Word Golf1 (the reader starts to get the joke) and ▒Word
Golf1
> >> leads full circle giving the notation ▒see Lass.1 Thus, through
literally
> >> searching for an answer and elucidation, the reader is lead in a circle
of
> >> maddening ▒word golf,1 that parallels the vain critical search for a
> >> definite reality in 'Pale Fire.' It's easy to do though, and it's easy
to
> >> be found at the end of the novel, still spinning from 'Lass,' to 'mass'
to
> >> 'male' etc. Yet this form of 'paper chase' criticism is surely
misguided;
> >> a wonderful, cunning diversion. True engagement with the novel, I
think,
> >> occurs when one considers the effect of these multiple and overlapped
> >> narrative layers; when the reader accepts the plurality of realities
and
> >> disallows one to take precedence over the other; allowing an
examination
> >> of the effect this multiplicity has upon the reader, how it possibly
> >> comments upon art, artifice, identity and reality.
> >>
>
> The circular references in the glossary are reminiscent of a really bad
> dictionary, except they aren't really glossing the words but merely
> demonstrating the Word Golf sequence Kinbote mentions in the note to Line
> 819. The other two examples play out like this I think:
>
> hate have lave love
>
> live line lind lend lead dead
>
> The obvious answer to the apparent paradoxes of internal authorship is
that
> Nabokov meant it to be like this. In other words, it is deliberately
> indeterminate, there is no "ultimate" solution. Why he did this is open to
> speculation, but it's certainly a technical exercise, or game, on his
part,
> and confounding readers and critics is another possible motive. It is also
> something -- perhaps the main thing -- which a postmodern writer like
> Pynchon has taken from this novel.
>
> Thinking of it from another perspective, if he did intend that Kinbote
> created Shade, or Shade Kinbote, or Botkin the lot of them, then the
> inconsistencies within the text which refute each of these readings are
> evidence that he has been unsuccessful in his aim, that he was not in
> control of his material -- in other words, that it is a flawed fiction.
>
> But I think Nabokov was very much in control of what he wrote, and that
all
> the false leads and red herrings, and thus the ultimate unanswerability of
> the internal authorship question, are precisely as he intended it to be.
The
> one level that does remain intact is that between the *real* author,
> Nabokov, and his real authorship of the novel, and the various possible
> *fictional* authorships which present themselves through his text. This,
to
> me, *is* the "Grand Unified Theory" of this novel, and not so perplexing
and
> unthinkable to a "good" reader in 2003 as it might have been back in 1962.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3425
> ********************************
>
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:17:52 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF--status of the two author theory
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Don Corathers
> >
> > I think the short answer is no.
> >
> > The author of the foreword takes pains to present evidence that the poem
> > was
> > written by Shade, describing the physical manuscript in careful detail.
> > There are also remarks from Professor Hurley, others in the WU English
> > Department, and Shade's agent that seem to confirm the existence of a
work
> > by John Shade and Charles Kinbote's contract to edit it and write a
> > commentary.
> >
> > It seems one of the decisions a reader has to make in trying to sort out
> > the
> > novel is what standard of evidence to apply. These standards change from
> > page to page as the assumptions underneath them shift and flow. For
> > example,
> > if you believe the poem and commentary were published (or at least
> > intended
> > for publication by the writer), you might be inclined to give more
weight
> > to
> > the comments of other living people included in the text on the theory
> > that
> > their response to their own portrayals would have some deterrent value
> > against fabrications. But of course we have no way of knowing what Sybil
> > and
> > Hurley might have said after reading the book--maybe one of them is
> > writing
> > a letter to the New York Times Book Review right now.
> >
> > Then there's that "your favorite." Still a puzzle. At the time the
> > foreword
> > was written, only the recently late Shade, Sybil, Kinbote, and
presumably
> > one or two people in the publisher's office knew the poem and were
> > qualified
> > to have a favorite canto. If we can illuminate this question from
evidence
> > later in the book just for a moment, there's not very much second person
> > address in here. Outside of conversations reproduced in the commentary,
> > the
> > only place I can remember it happening is when Shade speaks directly to
> > Sybil in the poem.
> >
> > The other aspect of the foreword that relates to the Single Bullet
Theory
> > is
> > the general impression that that Kinbote boy is not quite right in the
> > head,
> > but I'll be damned if I could say which side of the ledger that goes on.
> >
> > D.C.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> An interesting post to the N-List:
>
>
> http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=nabokv-l&P=R36690
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: James Veitch <mailto:james@jveitch.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >
> > Dear Mr (soon to be Dr?) Olson,
> >
> > What a great abstract! This is exactly what I am interested in. Nabokov
> > anticipates his critics (most clearly in 'Pale Fire') and forces terms
> > such as the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic and the intradiegetic-
> > homodiegetic to become instantly redundant. Rimmon comments (on
Sebastian
> > Knight, where the interpenetration is impossible to unravel) that ▄as if
> > to complicate matters, the different levels are made analogous to each
> > other, sometimes so much that they seem identical and the borders
between
> > them are often blurred by the penetration of one level into another. ╧
> >
> > What intrigues me, however, is the critical need (still) to 'unravel'
the
> > novel into its parts. This is beautifully impossible in 'Sebastian
> > Knight,' though that does not stop critics trying. I've even noticed
this
> > in the excerpts I've read of the 'Pale Fire' reading; a need to discover
> > an empirical solution...what 'actually happens.' But like Humbert
Humbert
> > who manufactures dreams for his Freudian doctors, 'pure classics in
style
> > (which make them the dream-extortionists, dream and wake up shrieking),'
> > Nabokov anticipates the critical response and makes it impossible.
> >
> > Here's an example that I think, partly, sums up a form of 'Pale Fire'
> > criticism. In the index of Pale Fire, the notation under ▄Lass╧ reads
▄see
> > Mass,╧ the note for ▄Mass╧ orders the reader to ▄see Male,╧ then ▄Male╧
> > says ▄see Word Golf╧ (the reader starts to get the joke) and ▄Word Golf╧
> > leads full circle giving the notation ▄see Lass.╧ Thus, through
literally
> > searching for an answer and elucidation, the reader is lead in a circle
of
> > maddening ▄word golf,╧ that parallels the vain critical search for a
> > definite reality in 'Pale Fire.' It's easy to do though, and it's easy
to
> > be found at the end of the novel, still spinning from 'Lass,' to 'mass'
to
> > 'male' etc. Yet this form of 'paper chase' criticism is surely
misguided;
> > a wonderful, cunning diversion. True engagement with the novel, I think,
> > occurs when one considers the effect of these multiple and overlapped
> > narrative layers; when the reader accepts the plurality of realities and
> > disallows one to take precedence over the other; allowing an examination
> > of the effect this multiplicity has upon the reader, how it possibly
> > comments upon art, artifice, identity and reality.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > Best Wishes
> > James
> >
>
>
> My take on this idea is that PF ultimately resembles one of those Escher
> prints (I'm thinking for instance of the one with the cloister and the
> stairs that twist dimensions through perspective), where once a stable
> perspective of one plane is achieved, the other planes are made impossible
> since each plane or perspective overlaps or bleeds into another. As the
eye
> of the viewer -- or the mind of the reader -- shifts perspective, the
object
> is made to transform. (As Mr. Veitch points out, the game of Word Golf
> played in the Index might reveal a simple way in which this transformative
> process occurs.) We will probably come to a better understanding of this
as
> we get deeper, but I'm wondering now, if this proves to be the case, then
is
> PF essentially unstable? A paradox? Is it essentially fluid? If it is
the
> activity of the reader in attempting to come to a complete
understanding --
> or what somebody has called a Grand Unified Theory -- of this novel that
> causes it to transform, then what implications does that have regarding
its
> relationship with its audience? Is it Schrodinger's Novel?
>
> Jasper
>
> Subject: WOW!!!! Pynchon-Nabokov Link!!!!!!!!
>> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:14:37 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: status of the two author theory
>
> on 19/7/03 7:17 AM, Jasper Fidget wrote:
>
> > An interesting post to the N-List:
> >
> >
> > http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0307&L=nabokv-l&P=R36690
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: James Veitch <mailto:james@jveitch.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >>
> >> Dear Mr (soon to be Dr?) Olson,
> >>
> >> What a great abstract! This is exactly what I am interested in. Nabokov
> >> anticipates his critics (most clearly in 'Pale Fire') and forces terms
> >> such as the extradiegetic-heterodiegetic and the intradiegetic-
> >> homodiegetic to become instantly redundant. Rimmon comments (on
Sebastian
> >> Knight, where the interpenetration is impossible to unravel) that ▒as
if
> >> to complicate matters, the different levels are made analogous to each
> >> other, sometimes so much that they seem identical and the borders
between
> >> them are often blurred by the penetration of one level into another. 1
> >>
> >> What intrigues me, however, is the critical need (still) to 'unravel'
the
> >> novel into its parts. This is beautifully impossible in 'Sebastian
> >> Knight,' though that does not stop critics trying. I've even noticed
this
> >> in the excerpts I've read of the 'Pale Fire' reading; a need to
discover
> >> an empirical solution...what 'actually happens.' But like Humbert
Humbert
> >> who manufactures dreams for his Freudian doctors, 'pure classics in
style
> >> (which make them the dream-extortionists, dream and wake up
shrieking),'
> >> Nabokov anticipates the critical response and makes it impossible.
> >>
> >> Here's an example that I think, partly, sums up a form of 'Pale Fire'
> >> criticism. In the index of Pale Fire, the notation under ▒Lass1 reads
▒see
> >> Mass,1 the note for ▒Mass1 orders the reader to ▒see Male,1 then ▒Male1
> >> says ▒see Word Golf1 (the reader starts to get the joke) and ▒Word
Golf1
> >> leads full circle giving the notation ▒see Lass.1 Thus, through
literally
> >> searching for an answer and elucidation, the reader is lead in a circle
of
> >> maddening ▒word golf,1 that parallels the vain critical search for a
> >> definite reality in 'Pale Fire.' It's easy to do though, and it's easy
to
> >> be found at the end of the novel, still spinning from 'Lass,' to 'mass'
to
> >> 'male' etc. Yet this form of 'paper chase' criticism is surely
misguided;
> >> a wonderful, cunning diversion. True engagement with the novel, I
think,
> >> occurs when one considers the effect of these multiple and overlapped
> >> narrative layers; when the reader accepts the plurality of realities
and
> >> disallows one to take precedence over the other; allowing an
examination
> >> of the effect this multiplicity has upon the reader, how it possibly
> >> comments upon art, artifice, identity and reality.
> >>
>
> The circular references in the glossary are reminiscent of a really bad
> dictionary, except they aren't really glossing the words but merely
> demonstrating the Word Golf sequence Kinbote mentions in the note to Line
> 819. The other two examples play out like this I think:
>
> hate have lave love
>
> live line lind lend lead dead
>
> The obvious answer to the apparent paradoxes of internal authorship is
that
> Nabokov meant it to be like this. In other words, it is deliberately
> indeterminate, there is no "ultimate" solution. Why he did this is open to
> speculation, but it's certainly a technical exercise, or game, on his
part,
> and confounding readers and critics is another possible motive. It is also
> something -- perhaps the main thing -- which a postmodern writer like
> Pynchon has taken from this novel.
>
> Thinking of it from another perspective, if he did intend that Kinbote
> created Shade, or Shade Kinbote, or Botkin the lot of them, then the
> inconsistencies within the text which refute each of these readings are
> evidence that he has been unsuccessful in his aim, that he was not in
> control of his material -- in other words, that it is a flawed fiction.
>
> But I think Nabokov was very much in control of what he wrote, and that
all
> the false leads and red herrings, and thus the ultimate unanswerability of
> the internal authorship question, are precisely as he intended it to be.
The
> one level that does remain intact is that between the *real* author,
> Nabokov, and his real authorship of the novel, and the various possible
> *fictional* authorships which present themselves through his text. This,
to
> me, *is* the "Grand Unified Theory" of this novel, and not so perplexing
and
> unthinkable to a "good" reader in 2003 as it might have been back in 1962.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3425
> ********************************
>