JM [ to JF on "Much as I appreciated the
comparison to "referential mania", I can't agree that PF is a trap for those who
search for the otherworldly. As Brian Boyd points out in his book, Nabokov
undoubtedly put a ghost in it" I now
set in relation to
JA's observation that "I always thought
he was just making up models for the possible. Pale Fire, to me seems especially
un-otherworldly" and "I was
merrely throwing in my two cents about what I took to be the book's essentially
comic themes."]
I wish we would quote different
scholars to widen our discussion about Pale Fire's "domestic
ghosts" but, in fact, this idea seems to be mainly Boydian who, apparently, does
not consider the comic dimension present in PF in the same way
as JA sees it.
I agree with JA, this novel is
wonderfully "tragicomic".
VN's use of "hereafter" instead of
"otherworld" (potustoronnost) emphasizes its
"thisourworldliness" of its "meta"physical ideas and
the delightful quotidian fleshyness of its characters.
BB pointed out the insertion of a ghost [As Brian Boyd points out in his book,
Nabokov....] And so what ( in the light of our more
general discussion)?
If we contradict the idea of domestic ghosts, are we necessarily
criticizing Boyd or merely opposing a metaphysical dimension added to such
pathetic domestic ghosts?
JM [ to MR on
"I only brought him
up because I surmised that JA's original comments about the Otherworld were
aimed at Boyd's theory in particular"].
I may be mistaken but I understood that JA was not
aiming at Boyd's theory but at how it has been explored. Besides, I
see a great difference bt. "the Otherworld" and the choice of writing
on a "Hereafter".
MR agrees that if ' "false vistas" are placed there by the author, then we had better
go ahead and explore them.They may not take us where wewanted to go, but they
are still a worthwhile destination.' At present there is no
agreement on how to distinguish "false vistas" and "true revelations"
( of whatever kind) MR adds that "VN's novels are
different because they so often take the form of puzzles. And what is the fun of
a puzzle if we have no regard for the intentions of the
designer." Nabokov was a Designer intermingled
with the corpus of the novel ( this interfering
playful Designer must be heeded!) while at the same time, he
remained Authorially external to it ( not to mention his unconscious
to add a bit to that "externality").
In relation to MR's answer to LH
[ "I agree with you that there is plenty of
evidence in the text to support the notion "that some sort of parellel, some
sort of identity between Shade and Kinbote is showing through, however
hard Shade tries to erase it." I do not, however,dismiss so easily the notion
the Shade and Kinbote share a body." ] I hope we can return to
LH poetic suggestion that Shade and Kinbote were presented stylistically as in a
mirror ( if I understood his point
correctly) .