Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3394
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3394
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 11 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3394
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:39:41 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Epigraph (not the pissing contest)
>
> Interesting note from David Roach on the epigraph.
>
> Thanks also to jbor, malign and others who illuminated this topic earlier
today. One other morsel I happened across at lunch that relates to Kinbote▓s
perception of himself as Shade▓s biographer: p 264 in the Commentary, a note
on a section of Canto IV in which Shade describes his method of shaving in
the tub:
>
> Lines 887-888: Since my biographer may be too staid or know too little
>
> [Of which Kinbote writes] Too staid? Know too little? Had my poor friend
precognized _who_ that would be, he would have been spared those
conjectures. As a matter of fact I had the pleasure and honor of witnessing
(one March morning) the performance he describes in the next lines. [┘]
>
> Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to Shade▓s
Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote▓s delusion that he believed he was
serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem, both
before and after his death.
>
> Anyhow, I▓m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the source of the
epigraph on the table for now.
>
>
> David Roach wrote:
>
> But > here's the rub: in the first edition of PF [Putnam's, 1962, and in
the >
> current "standard," the Vintage International paperback, published in
1989, >
> which was apparently reset from the first edition], the epigraph (the >
> quotation from Boswell) appears *before* the table of contents, whereas in
>
> later editions [such as the Berkley Medallion paperback, published in
1963, >
> and the Wideview/Perigee paperback, published in 1980], it appears *after*
>
> the table of contents. The raises the question, who chose the epigraph? Is
> it
> VN acting as the author of the novel PF, or is it someone within the >
story
> world (i.e., Kinbote or Shade)?
>
> [more]
>
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:07:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: The State of the P-List (part 2)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:13:11 EDT
> From: MalignD@aol.com
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Epigraph (not the pissing contest)
>
> - --part1_104.3274c6ba.2c409077_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Language: en
>
>
> In a message dated 7/11/03 5:41:09 PM, gumbo@fuse.net writes:
>
>
> > Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to Shade=
> =E2=80=99s=20
> > Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote=E2=80=99s delusion that he
belie=
> ved he was=20
> > serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem,
bo=
> th=20
> > before and after his death.
> >=20
> > Anyhow, I=E2=80=99m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the
source=20=
> of the=20
> > epigraph on the table for now.=C2=A0
> >=20
> It's possible, of course (even likely), that VN intended this sort of=20
> unknowing. There was some discussion earlier about involution and one
shou=
> ldn't=20
> dismiss VN's allowing the involutions to open out of the novel into
uncertai=
> nty=20
> (or real life). Part of the trap of Pale Fire is believing that all
Naboko=
> v's=20
> clues lead to a resolution. Pale Fire reveals its secrets in time.
What=20
> seems at first straightforward, a parody of commentary run amok, opens
into=20=
> the=20
> strange correlations between the poem and the commentary and from there=20
> numerous floors drop out from beneath a reader. The confounding thing
abou=
> t Pale=20
> Fire is that one's questions may not be resolved, but resolution seems
alway=
> s=20
> over the next hill.
>
> It is possible that Pynchon understood and took confidence from this=20
> opening-out in PF in writing GR, wherein the set piece mystery that opens
th=
> e novel --=20
> Slothrop's odd attraction to the rockets -- is left unanswered. Total=20
> conjecture becuase of TP's irritating muteness and GR's being a very very
di=
> fferent=20
> novel, but PF is anyway, a chronological precedent.
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:22:19 EDT
> From: MalignD@aol.com
> Subject: Re: The State of the P-List (part 2)
>
> - --part1_19f.17c8d616.2c40929b_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> > <<I maintain that efforts be made on the part of the PF readers to
link=20
> > their reading of Nabokov to the subject of this listserve community.=A0
..=
> ..=20
> > Anyways, as I've mentioned to a couple of people offlist, nothing in my
po=
> sition=20
> > has been directed toward=A0impatiently pestering all the PF readers to
hur=
> ry up=20
> > and make connections to P, as one person has erroneously stated.=A0>>
> >=20
> This is wholly sane and reasonable, but misses at least a point. I
think=20
> everyone who is enthusiastic about the PF read agrees. But it has to
be=20
> allowed to play out. There are numerous people warring against it as
inapp=
> ropriate=20
> (some claiming otherwise). But there is nothing to come of this if the=20
> reading isn't alllowed merely to be. Connections will come. We're
talking=20=
> about a=20
> complex work of art and we're just beginning. Asking for quotas of=20
> Pynchon-related material is the work of very small minds and they should
be=20=
> ignored. =20
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:46:00 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: Like Bush And His Cronies
>
> David writes,
>
> > AND (not hosting but participating nicely): Rob Jackson, The Great
Quail,
>
> Wait -- I thought I was assigned Canto IV?
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:55:28 EDT
> >
>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:17:16 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:26:07 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> At many other moments, however, Kinbote details how he continually and
> deliberately hinted to Shade to compose the poem about his own alterego,
> Charles the Beloved, and in the final piece of commentary to the missing
> Line 1000 he admits his expectation that the poem would be a "kind of
> *romaunt* about the King of Zembla", about how disappointed he was to find
> it at first merely an "autobiographical, eminently Appalachian, rather
> old-fashioned narrative in a neo-Popian prosodic style", and then how, on
> rereading the poem he did perceive the "dim distant music, those vestiges
of
> color in the air" which confirms his original solipsism and generates much
> of the substance of his commentary.
>
> I'd be inclined to follow the standard editions (the first edition, the
> Vintage, the Penguin Classics) in respect to the placement of the epigraph
> - -- not that that proves anything, of course, but the variants might be
down
> to a particular house style. (Note to David Roach: there's a delay of a
> couple of days or so in messages getting to the list when they're from
email
> accounts which aren't subscribed to the pynchon-list. To subscribe, go to
> www.waste.org/pynchon-l/)
>
> On the strength of interpretive consistency I'm inclined to stick with
> Nabokov as Nabokov, rather than Nabokov as Kinbote, as the intended
> originator of the Epigraph. However, trying (and failing!) to nail down
even
> this simple point reminds me of Oedipa Maas getting all caught up in
> footnotes and variant editions in attempting to locate a definitive
version
> of the Trystero quote in 'The Courier's Tragedy' in _Lot 49_. It might be
as
> Malignd said, "that VN intended this sort of unknowing", that
> indeterminacies such as this have been deliberately inscribed by Nabokov
> into his text (cf. Pynchon again), or, indeed, that he was happy enough to
> let rather more unintentional ambiguities persist once they had arisen.
>
> best
>
> on 12/7/03 7:39 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
>
> > Interesting note from David Roach on the epigraph.
> >
> > Thanks also to jbor, malign and others who illuminated this topic
earlier
> > today. One other morsel I happened across at lunch that relates to
Kinbote▓s
> > perception of himself as Shade▓s biographer: p 264 in the Commentary, a
note
> > on a section of Canto IV in which Shade describes his method of shaving
in the
> > tub:
> >
> > Lines 887-888: Since my biographer may be too staid or know too little
> >
> > [Of which Kinbote writes] Too staid? Know too little? Had my poor friend
> > precognized _who_ that would be, he would have been spared those
conjectures.
> > As a matter of fact I had the pleasure and honor of witnessing (one
March
> > morning) the performance he describes in the next lines. [┘]
> >
> > Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to
Shade▓s
> > Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote▓s delusion that he believed he
was
> > serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem,
both
> > before and after his death.
> >
> > Anyhow, I▓m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the source of the
> > epigraph on the table for now.
> >
> >
> > David Roach wrote:
> >
> > But > here's the rub: in the first edition of PF [Putnam's, 1962, and in
the >
> > current "standard," the Vintage International paperback, published in
1989, >
> > which was apparently reset from the first edition], the epigraph (the >
> > quotation from Boswell) appears *before* the table of contents, whereas
in >
> > later editions [such as the Berkley Medallion paperback, published in
1963, >
> > and the Wideview/Perigee paperback, published in 1980], it appears
*after* >
> > the table of contents. The raises the question, who chose the epigraph?
Is >
> > it
> > VN acting as the author of the novel PF, or is it someone within the >
story
> > world (i.e., Kinbote or Shade)?
> >
> > [more]
> >
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:43:01 -0500
> From: James Spencer <jspencer78@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Malignd wrote:
>
> > <<For it to be Kinbote's would require him to have
> > more of a sense of humor and self-awareness than his
> > Intro and Commentary suggest he has. I think that
> > becomes evident when you examine the content of the
> > epigraph.>>
> >
> > I think this is wrong.
> >
> > I had forgotten (and was corrected by Jaspar) that
> > Kinbote had access to at least some part of Boswell's
> > Johnson; I don't think that can be assumed of no
> > consequence.
> >
> > Further, I think it's a misreading of Kinbote to say
> > he lacks self-awareness. He's nothing but
> > self-awareness. He's deluded, probably, and, at the
> > time of writing the commentary, likely suicidal, but
> > he's a case study of pathological self-regard.
>
> But he shows little sign of awareness of his pathology and the point
> regarding the sense of humor of the author of the epigraph is well
> taken. I have a tough time seeing Kinbote using this quote.
>
> Spence
>
> James P. Spencer
> Rochester, MN
>
> jspencer78@charter.net
>
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3394
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3394
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 11 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3394
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:39:41 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Epigraph (not the pissing contest)
>
> Interesting note from David Roach on the epigraph.
>
> Thanks also to jbor, malign and others who illuminated this topic earlier
today. One other morsel I happened across at lunch that relates to Kinbote▓s
perception of himself as Shade▓s biographer: p 264 in the Commentary, a note
on a section of Canto IV in which Shade describes his method of shaving in
the tub:
>
> Lines 887-888: Since my biographer may be too staid or know too little
>
> [Of which Kinbote writes] Too staid? Know too little? Had my poor friend
precognized _who_ that would be, he would have been spared those
conjectures. As a matter of fact I had the pleasure and honor of witnessing
(one March morning) the performance he describes in the next lines. [┘]
>
> Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to Shade▓s
Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote▓s delusion that he believed he was
serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem, both
before and after his death.
>
> Anyhow, I▓m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the source of the
epigraph on the table for now.
>
>
> David Roach wrote:
>
> But > here's the rub: in the first edition of PF [Putnam's, 1962, and in
the >
> current "standard," the Vintage International paperback, published in
1989, >
> which was apparently reset from the first edition], the epigraph (the >
> quotation from Boswell) appears *before* the table of contents, whereas in
>
> later editions [such as the Berkley Medallion paperback, published in
1963, >
> and the Wideview/Perigee paperback, published in 1980], it appears *after*
>
> the table of contents. The raises the question, who chose the epigraph? Is
> it
> VN acting as the author of the novel PF, or is it someone within the >
story
> world (i.e., Kinbote or Shade)?
>
> [more]
>
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:07:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: The State of the P-List (part 2)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:13:11 EDT
> From: MalignD@aol.com
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Epigraph (not the pissing contest)
>
> - --part1_104.3274c6ba.2c409077_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Language: en
>
>
> In a message dated 7/11/03 5:41:09 PM, gumbo@fuse.net writes:
>
>
> > Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to Shade=
> =E2=80=99s=20
> > Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote=E2=80=99s delusion that he
belie=
> ved he was=20
> > serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem,
bo=
> th=20
> > before and after his death.
> >=20
> > Anyhow, I=E2=80=99m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the
source=20=
> of the=20
> > epigraph on the table for now.=C2=A0
> >=20
> It's possible, of course (even likely), that VN intended this sort of=20
> unknowing. There was some discussion earlier about involution and one
shou=
> ldn't=20
> dismiss VN's allowing the involutions to open out of the novel into
uncertai=
> nty=20
> (or real life). Part of the trap of Pale Fire is believing that all
Naboko=
> v's=20
> clues lead to a resolution. Pale Fire reveals its secrets in time.
What=20
> seems at first straightforward, a parody of commentary run amok, opens
into=20=
> the=20
> strange correlations between the poem and the commentary and from there=20
> numerous floors drop out from beneath a reader. The confounding thing
abou=
> t Pale=20
> Fire is that one's questions may not be resolved, but resolution seems
alway=
> s=20
> over the next hill.
>
> It is possible that Pynchon understood and took confidence from this=20
> opening-out in PF in writing GR, wherein the set piece mystery that opens
th=
> e novel --=20
> Slothrop's odd attraction to the rockets -- is left unanswered. Total=20
> conjecture becuase of TP's irritating muteness and GR's being a very very
di=
> fferent=20
> novel, but PF is anyway, a chronological precedent.
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:22:19 EDT
> From: MalignD@aol.com
> Subject: Re: The State of the P-List (part 2)
>
> - --part1_19f.17c8d616.2c40929b_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> > <<I maintain that efforts be made on the part of the PF readers to
link=20
> > their reading of Nabokov to the subject of this listserve community.=A0
..=
> ..=20
> > Anyways, as I've mentioned to a couple of people offlist, nothing in my
po=
> sition=20
> > has been directed toward=A0impatiently pestering all the PF readers to
hur=
> ry up=20
> > and make connections to P, as one person has erroneously stated.=A0>>
> >=20
> This is wholly sane and reasonable, but misses at least a point. I
think=20
> everyone who is enthusiastic about the PF read agrees. But it has to
be=20
> allowed to play out. There are numerous people warring against it as
inapp=
> ropriate=20
> (some claiming otherwise). But there is nothing to come of this if the=20
> reading isn't alllowed merely to be. Connections will come. We're
talking=20=
> about a=20
> complex work of art and we're just beginning. Asking for quotas of=20
> Pynchon-related material is the work of very small minds and they should
be=20=
> ignored. =20
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:46:00 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: Like Bush And His Cronies
>
> David writes,
>
> > AND (not hosting but participating nicely): Rob Jackson, The Great
Quail,
>
> Wait -- I thought I was assigned Canto IV?
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:55:28 EDT
> >
>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:17:16 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:26:07 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> At many other moments, however, Kinbote details how he continually and
> deliberately hinted to Shade to compose the poem about his own alterego,
> Charles the Beloved, and in the final piece of commentary to the missing
> Line 1000 he admits his expectation that the poem would be a "kind of
> *romaunt* about the King of Zembla", about how disappointed he was to find
> it at first merely an "autobiographical, eminently Appalachian, rather
> old-fashioned narrative in a neo-Popian prosodic style", and then how, on
> rereading the poem he did perceive the "dim distant music, those vestiges
of
> color in the air" which confirms his original solipsism and generates much
> of the substance of his commentary.
>
> I'd be inclined to follow the standard editions (the first edition, the
> Vintage, the Penguin Classics) in respect to the placement of the epigraph
> - -- not that that proves anything, of course, but the variants might be
down
> to a particular house style. (Note to David Roach: there's a delay of a
> couple of days or so in messages getting to the list when they're from
> accounts which aren't subscribed to the pynchon-list. To subscribe, go to
> www.waste.org/pynchon-l/)
>
> On the strength of interpretive consistency I'm inclined to stick with
> Nabokov as Nabokov, rather than Nabokov as Kinbote, as the intended
> originator of the Epigraph. However, trying (and failing!) to nail down
even
> this simple point reminds me of Oedipa Maas getting all caught up in
> footnotes and variant editions in attempting to locate a definitive
version
> of the Trystero quote in 'The Courier's Tragedy' in _Lot 49_. It might be
as
> Malignd said, "that VN intended this sort of unknowing", that
> indeterminacies such as this have been deliberately inscribed by Nabokov
> into his text (cf. Pynchon again), or, indeed, that he was happy enough to
> let rather more unintentional ambiguities persist once they had arisen.
>
> best
>
> on 12/7/03 7:39 AM, gumbo@fuse.net wrote:
>
> > Interesting note from David Roach on the epigraph.
> >
> > Thanks also to jbor, malign and others who illuminated this topic
earlier
> > today. One other morsel I happened across at lunch that relates to
Kinbote▓s
> > perception of himself as Shade▓s biographer: p 264 in the Commentary, a
note
> > on a section of Canto IV in which Shade describes his method of shaving
in the
> > tub:
> >
> > Lines 887-888: Since my biographer may be too staid or know too little
> >
> > [Of which Kinbote writes] Too staid? Know too little? Had my poor friend
> > precognized _who_ that would be, he would have been spared those
conjectures.
> > As a matter of fact I had the pleasure and honor of witnessing (one
March
> > morning) the performance he describes in the next lines. [┘]
> >
> > Clearly suggesting that Kinbote did consider himself a Boswell to
Shade▓s
> > Johnson. It seems consistent with Kinbote▓s delusion that he believed he
was
> > serving his favorite poet even as he tried to hijack Shade's last poem,
both
> > before and after his death.
> >
> > Anyhow, I▓m going to leave my nomination of Kinbote as the source of the
> > epigraph on the table for now.
> >
> >
> > David Roach wrote:
> >
> > But > here's the rub: in the first edition of PF [Putnam's, 1962, and in
the >
> > current "standard," the Vintage International paperback, published in
1989, >
> > which was apparently reset from the first edition], the epigraph (the >
> > quotation from Boswell) appears *before* the table of contents, whereas
in >
> > later editions [such as the Berkley Medallion paperback, published in
1963, >
> > and the Wideview/Perigee paperback, published in 1980], it appears
*after* >
> > the table of contents. The raises the question, who chose the epigraph?
Is >
> > it
> > VN acting as the author of the novel PF, or is it someone within the >
story
> > world (i.e., Kinbote or Shade)?
> >
> > [more]
> >
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:43:01 -0500
> From: James Spencer <jspencer78@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Preliminary: The Epigraph
>
> On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Malignd wrote:
>
> > <<For it to be Kinbote's would require him to have
> > more of a sense of humor and self-awareness than his
> > Intro and Commentary suggest he has. I think that
> > becomes evident when you examine the content of the
> > epigraph.>>
> >
> > I think this is wrong.
> >
> > I had forgotten (and was corrected by Jaspar) that
> > Kinbote had access to at least some part of Boswell's
> > Johnson; I don't think that can be assumed of no
> > consequence.
> >
> > Further, I think it's a misreading of Kinbote to say
> > he lacks self-awareness. He's nothing but
> > self-awareness. He's deluded, probably, and, at the
> > time of writing the commentary, likely suicidal, but
> > he's a case study of pathological self-regard.
>
> But he shows little sign of awareness of his pathology and the point
> regarding the sense of humor of the author of the epigraph is well
> taken. I have a tough time seeing Kinbote using this quote.
>
> Spence
>
> James P. Spencer
> Rochester, MN
>
> jspencer78@charter.net
>
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3394
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.