Subject
Fw: Advice on reading Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> First of all, I'd read it straight through the first time and not bother
following all of Kinbote's notes. People get entirely too tangled up in HOW
to read "Pale Fire," so much so that the book sometimes defeats them. It's
often the case with a complex literary work that it's best to start with a
superficial, shallow understanding -- which at any rate is far preferable to
no understanding -- and then building on it through subsequent readings. Who
ever makes perfect sense of Joyce's "Ulysses" the first time through? No
one. But you can get a sense of what Joyce is doing, and you get a better
sense through sustained exposure to the novel.
>
> That's the way I tackled "Pale Fire" -- it was assigned in an American
Novel survey course and I think we had all of a week to deal with it. The
teacher loved the book and I picked up on his delight; the book stayed in
the memory eventhough I didn't pick it up again for another decade (although
I've read it many times since.)
>
> There's the point Nabokov made in his lectures, as has already been noted,
that books can't be read, only re-read; somewhere in one lecture he mentions
how the second reading of a great book is better than the first, and the
interest and excitement multiply through the third and fourth. "Pale Fire"
is unique in world literature, I think, so it's only natural that entering
it is a little unsettling. The more you read it, the more familiar it
becomes, the better it gets.
>
> So I vote for "Stick with it."
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> Sent: 05/13/03 12:47 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Advice on reading Pale Fire
>
> >
> > EDNOTE. I concur that reading Boyd FIRST is not a good idea.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hц╔kan Anderson Klinte" <2klinhaan@tjelvar.org>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (18
> lines) ------------------
> > Hi -
> >
> > Two options:
> >
> > 1 Just read on, it's not a difficult book, and if yoц╨ don't get into
the
> book just skip it and
>
> > 2 Read another, traditional, book and try again a couple of years
> later.
> >
> > But if you stay in no 1 you'll get rewarded, because it's an adventure,
> nothing less.
> >
> > But for godsake: don't read Boyd before Nabokov.
> > Read it after and you'll get even more rewarded.
> >
> > Greetings from Gotland
> > Hц╔kan Anderson
> >
> >
>
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> First of all, I'd read it straight through the first time and not bother
following all of Kinbote's notes. People get entirely too tangled up in HOW
to read "Pale Fire," so much so that the book sometimes defeats them. It's
often the case with a complex literary work that it's best to start with a
superficial, shallow understanding -- which at any rate is far preferable to
no understanding -- and then building on it through subsequent readings. Who
ever makes perfect sense of Joyce's "Ulysses" the first time through? No
one. But you can get a sense of what Joyce is doing, and you get a better
sense through sustained exposure to the novel.
>
> That's the way I tackled "Pale Fire" -- it was assigned in an American
Novel survey course and I think we had all of a week to deal with it. The
teacher loved the book and I picked up on his delight; the book stayed in
the memory eventhough I didn't pick it up again for another decade (although
I've read it many times since.)
>
> There's the point Nabokov made in his lectures, as has already been noted,
that books can't be read, only re-read; somewhere in one lecture he mentions
how the second reading of a great book is better than the first, and the
interest and excitement multiply through the third and fourth. "Pale Fire"
is unique in world literature, I think, so it's only natural that entering
it is a little unsettling. The more you read it, the more familiar it
becomes, the better it gets.
>
> So I vote for "Stick with it."
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> Sent: 05/13/03 12:47 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Advice on reading Pale Fire
>
> >
> > EDNOTE. I concur that reading Boyd FIRST is not a good idea.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hц╔kan Anderson Klinte" <2klinhaan@tjelvar.org>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (18
> lines) ------------------
> > Hi -
> >
> > Two options:
> >
> > 1 Just read on, it's not a difficult book, and if yoц╨ don't get into
the
> book just skip it and
>
> > 2 Read another, traditional, book and try again a couple of years
> later.
> >
> > But if you stay in no 1 you'll get rewarded, because it's an adventure,
> nothing less.
> >
> > But for godsake: don't read Boyd before Nabokov.
> > Read it after and you'll get even more rewarded.
> >
> > Greetings from Gotland
> > Hц╔kan Anderson
> >
> >
>