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.