Anthony Stadlen wrote: "There is no middle part of Pale Fire, and no
evidence as far as I know, apart from Kinbote's unsubstantiated assertion that,
in the second part, the poem itself, line 1000 = line 1."
He was
answering GS's example on "symmetry" observing that in 'The
Circle', "the story flows into itself (as middle part of Pale
Fire)".
A full circle suggests the alchemical image of the "ouroboros" ( the snake
biting its tail) and a "closure" which I don't think would represent author VN's
intentions concerning "Pale Fire".
It has been pointed out that we find symmetry in nature, but that it is
seldom perfect.Besides, we have only Kinbote's word that the Fourth Canto was
ordered and scanned the way he presented it to the reader. The missing line
might even be an amusing allucion at nature's imperfect symmetry,,, In
"Ada" we find that Terra and Antiterra are not exact opposites, neither in
time nor in space. I wouldn't even seriously consider them
as a morphological alegory to
"symmetry".
VN invites the reader to make at least two distinct
perspectives merge when they simultaneously enjoy the twirl and twist
of his "self-referential sentences" ( cf., for example, Alfred Appel
Jr's introduction in "The Annotated Lolita" and how he had to extricate himself
of his preface) and when the reader dissociates himself ( and the author) from
such a trap.
A. Stadlen asked: "As a general rule, is it not crucial not to fall for the
symmetries and circularities proposed by self-absorbed narcissists
like Hermann and Kinbote? A large part of VN's challenge to the
reader is not to be seduced by such unreliable (to put it absurdly
mildly) narrators..." I'm curious to learn why A.Stadlen
thinks that "symmetries and circularities" are merely the ones we find in VN's
"self-absorbed narcissists" ( A.Appel.Jr. discussed this in relation to "an
escape from solipsism").
Jansy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] On symmetry
'The
Circle' - the story flows into itself (as middle part of Pale
Fire)
There is no middle part of Pale Fire, and no evidence as far as I know,
apart from Kinbote's unsubstantiated assertion that, in the second part, the
poem itself, line 1000 = line 1.
Dmitri Nabokov, answering my question about this some months ago,
said that his father had at an early stage pointed out the "round
the corner" nature of the last line, but he has not yet answered my
question just what he or his father meant by that, or whether that
actually implies line 1000 = line 1 in the mind of Shade or of VN (or indeed
DN).
I think Susan Elizabeth Sweeney's suggestion for line 1000 (in
the great competition at the turn of this last year) was the nicest, but
it still lacks the consonne d'appui.
As a general rule, is it not crucial not to fall for the symmetries and
circularities proposed by self-absorbed narcissists like Hermann and
Kinbote? A large part of VN's challenge to the reader is not to be
seduced by such unreliable (to put it absurdly
mildly) narrators. It may seem easy not to be seduced, as these
narrators are so outrageous, but in fact people do seem to me to accept some
of their assertions far too readily (as happened with Humbert too, of course).
Such acceptance does not seem to me the mark of what VN called a good
reader.
Anthony Stadlen
Search the Nabokv-L archive at
UCSB
Contact the
Editors
All private editorial communications, without exception,
are read by both co-editors.
Visit Zembla
View Nabokv-L Policies