Vladimir Nabokov

NABOKV-L post 0004779, Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:50:28 -0800

Subject
Re: Pale Fire & homophobia (fwd)
Date
Body

Response to Tom Bolt:

<<We have to be careful not merely to indulge our own
prejudices -- that's real smugness. If we do live in a
vastly more enlightened time than poor old VN, and I
devoutly hope we do, by all means let's
revel in it--but should we really be talking about
such a highly organized and complex book in such a
sloppy, simple way? Shouldn't a charge as serious
homophobia have a serious basis?>>

So, you think I'm smug and not serious? Damn. You're right: I'm wrong
to assume you would have either the cultural or critical equipment to
grasp my ideas without having to spell them all out.

I don't know. Maybe it's obvious for *me* because *I* can't unsee it: I
can't unsee the homophobic constructions that determine the make of
Kinbote and his placement in the narrative. For *one*: Kinbote's
inversion of Shade isn't *just* an aesthetic or thematic strategy --
it's a verification of the homophobic construction that
homosexuals are a perverse tragiversation of heterosexual models. That's
textbook homophobia.

What perplexes me about your response, besides your spin-doctoring of my
post (see below for clarifications), is that you have such a problem
with the question. What's so awful about it?

<<I would challenge anyone who thinks PALE FIRE
is homophobic to come up with some specific examples
from the book and support them with a focused, logical
argument rather than sweeping statements, nonsense
terms like "cultural project", and out-of-context,
ahistorical, glib, or casual references to too-easily
shared assumptions. >>

How much are you willing to pay for my time?

<< Aldo Alvarez says, in his more interesting ramble
around the topic:

There IS something to questioning Nabokov's representation of queers,
but it's not a question of it being Bad or Good Art or having it fit
into a Politically Correct canon. It's a question of trying to
understand something about this particular text's relationship to the
subject.

However--What subject, good lord? Is Aldo Alvarez
saying that "the subject" of PALE FIRE is homosexuality?>>

God, no, don't be silly. I did not mean that PALE FIRE's subject --
*the* subject of PALE FIRE -- is homosexuality.

I meant that it's fair game to question how PALE FIRE relates to the
subject (the subject at hand, that subject being: homosexuality).

I mean, it's not like it's an incidental element of the narrative.

Please forgive the unclarity: English is being my second language.

<<This assertion also needs an argument.>>

The argument's called Queer Theory. Pick up Annamarie Jagose's QUEER
THEORY: An Introduction.

<<Also--are we really
to understand that Vladimir Nabokov needed Firbank, Benson,
and camp to get to frivolity, irony, and indeterminacy?>>

I don't know where you got the word "needed" -- did I use the word
"needed"? I don't make any claims of him "needing them"; that suggests
a certain value judgment I don't see implied in my statement.

<<Or that the other characters in PALE FIRE are "normal".>>

Let me ask you a question. Are John Shade's sentiments verified as
reliable, justifiable and authentic in the narrative? If yes, he's "normal".

--

Aldo Alvarez
Aa : Aldo Alvarez sited : http://www.blithe.com/aa/
Editor, Blithe House Quarterly : a site for gay short fiction : http://www.blithe.com/

Deep House. Smart House. Sweet House. Blithe House.