Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 # Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3532
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, September 4 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3532
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:10:12 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Comm 2: Dr. Notebook
>
> Hold on, there, pardner. The thesis of the paper is that Kinbote is
Botkin's
> creation and that Botkin (bodkin, note correct spelling) is "the
instrument
> Nabokov uses to pierce the material of the novel without causing any snags
> or runs that would give away his presence too easily, allowing his entry
> into the text to remain stealthy."
>
> I've only had time to read half and skim half, but I don't think there's
> anything in there about about Kinbote as author of the poem. Kaplan
> addresses single author theories very briefly at the bottom of page 1
> (online--if you print it it'll be page 5), and includes Shade as a free
> agent under contract to Nabokov.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> To: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>; <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF Comm 2: Dr. Notebook
>
>
> >
> > --- s~Z <keithsz@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/kaplan1.htm
> >
> > Having only skimmed this article, understanding Botkin to be the
> uber-author of
> > Pale Fire, a fictional third, hidden (mostly) character who wrote both
> poem and
> > commentary, and who invented both Shade and Kinbote (and Charles), I
have
> to
> > admit I'm left unsatasfied (like Keith, but not necessarily for the same
> > reasons), but not necesarily unconvinced. This uber-author is
essentially
> > Nabokov himself, once removed into a novel. But does this fancy
footwork
> > relieve the author of responsibility to make "his" fictional world
> complete in
> > its own right? If this reading is correct, it should only be a lesser
> game
> > inside the bigger nut we're trying to crack, IMHO.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
>>
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:35:37 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF That'd be up the butt, Bob [was Comm 2: My bedroom, part
2 (tendril)]
>
> I think I 've figured this out, at some cost to my moral serenity: with no
> "secondary homosexual complications" Kinbote is assuring us he's not
Fleur's
> back-door man, either.
>
> The only definition of incest in MW10 is "sexual intercourse between
persons
> so closely related that they are forbidden to marry; also the statutory
> crime of such a relationship." Under the technical virgin rule (similar
but
> at a slight remove from an argument once put forward by a recent
president,
> God bless 'im) , anal sex would not be, strictly speaking, sexual
> intercourse, so Kinbote has to assure us on both counts. The act would be
> secondary in two senses: the choice of orifice is a second option, and it
is
> a "secondary homosexual" undertaking because Charles, bending over young
> Fleur, would be fantasizing about a boy.
>
> Don
>
> >
> > > > > "...as a sister but with no soft shadow of incest or secondary
> > homosexual
> > > complications.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean, "secondary homosexual complications"? Anybody?
> > >
> > > I believe it means that since she was his sister - not his brother -
> that
> > there
> > > was neither incestual - nor homosexual - temptation for Charles.
> > >
> > > David Morris
> >
> >
> > I think it's a little more subtle than that. The structure of the
sentence
> > indicates that the two possible complications that occur after the "but"
> are
> > conditions that *could* exist between Charles and someone he is "fond
> of...
> > as of a sister," but they don't. Now, he couldn't really indulge in
incest
> > with Fleur because she's not really his sister, but since he thinks of
her
> > as one, he might think of sex with her as incestuous (especially since
> he's
> > happy to have any excuse not to go to bed with her). But what the devil
> are
> > "secondary homosexual complications," and how can homosexual
complications
> > of any kind exist between a male and female, whether they think of each
> > other as siblings or not? Does "secondary" have some special meaning
here?
> > Please spell it out for me. I'm a country boy.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > >
> ------------------------------
>>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3532
> ********************************
>
> 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: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3532
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, September 4 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3532
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:10:12 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Comm 2: Dr. Notebook
>
> Hold on, there, pardner. The thesis of the paper is that Kinbote is
Botkin's
> creation and that Botkin (bodkin, note correct spelling) is "the
instrument
> Nabokov uses to pierce the material of the novel without causing any snags
> or runs that would give away his presence too easily, allowing his entry
> into the text to remain stealthy."
>
> I've only had time to read half and skim half, but I don't think there's
> anything in there about about Kinbote as author of the poem. Kaplan
> addresses single author theories very briefly at the bottom of page 1
> (online--if you print it it'll be page 5), and includes Shade as a free
> agent under contract to Nabokov.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> To: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>; <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF Comm 2: Dr. Notebook
>
>
> >
> > --- s~Z <keithsz@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/kaplan1.htm
> >
> > Having only skimmed this article, understanding Botkin to be the
> uber-author of
> > Pale Fire, a fictional third, hidden (mostly) character who wrote both
> poem and
> > commentary, and who invented both Shade and Kinbote (and Charles), I
have
> to
> > admit I'm left unsatasfied (like Keith, but not necessarily for the same
> > reasons), but not necesarily unconvinced. This uber-author is
essentially
> > Nabokov himself, once removed into a novel. But does this fancy
footwork
> > relieve the author of responsibility to make "his" fictional world
> complete in
> > its own right? If this reading is correct, it should only be a lesser
> game
> > inside the bigger nut we're trying to crack, IMHO.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
>>
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:35:37 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF That'd be up the butt, Bob [was Comm 2: My bedroom, part
2 (tendril)]
>
> I think I 've figured this out, at some cost to my moral serenity: with no
> "secondary homosexual complications" Kinbote is assuring us he's not
Fleur's
> back-door man, either.
>
> The only definition of incest in MW10 is "sexual intercourse between
persons
> so closely related that they are forbidden to marry; also the statutory
> crime of such a relationship." Under the technical virgin rule (similar
but
> at a slight remove from an argument once put forward by a recent
president,
> God bless 'im) , anal sex would not be, strictly speaking, sexual
> intercourse, so Kinbote has to assure us on both counts. The act would be
> secondary in two senses: the choice of orifice is a second option, and it
is
> a "secondary homosexual" undertaking because Charles, bending over young
> Fleur, would be fantasizing about a boy.
>
> Don
>
> >
> > > > > "...as a sister but with no soft shadow of incest or secondary
> > homosexual
> > > complications.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean, "secondary homosexual complications"? Anybody?
> > >
> > > I believe it means that since she was his sister - not his brother -
> that
> > there
> > > was neither incestual - nor homosexual - temptation for Charles.
> > >
> > > David Morris
> >
> >
> > I think it's a little more subtle than that. The structure of the
sentence
> > indicates that the two possible complications that occur after the "but"
> are
> > conditions that *could* exist between Charles and someone he is "fond
> of...
> > as of a sister," but they don't. Now, he couldn't really indulge in
incest
> > with Fleur because she's not really his sister, but since he thinks of
her
> > as one, he might think of sex with her as incestuous (especially since
> he's
> > happy to have any excuse not to go to bed with her). But what the devil
> are
> > "secondary homosexual complications," and how can homosexual
complications
> > of any kind exist between a male and female, whether they think of each
> > other as siblings or not? Does "secondary" have some special meaning
here?
> > Please spell it out for me. I'm a country boy.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > >
> ------------------------------
>>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3532
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.