Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3420 (Pale Fire)
From
Date
Body
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: N and homosexuatity
>
> Tonight I've seen Moonchildren in this text. Look at Aunt Maud's tomb.
Luna
> abounds.
>
> But lesbians don't usually abuse little boyz...
>
> David Morris
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:23:57 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2(1) Missed Communications: Beginnings
>
> The sacred I meant comes from Mircea Eliade
>
> Is that right?
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:50:54 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 work (correction)
>
> on 17/7/03 12:46 PM, jbor at jbor@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> > The idea that he is (or that Pynchon is) consciously decking himself out
as
> > a demented housewife, is condescending and chauvinistic, in my opinion.
>
> Not the idea of it, sorry. If that's what either one is doing then they're
> being condescending and chauvinistic, imo.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:05:30 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> Tim and Jasper were talking about narrative voice and authority this
> morning, and it set me thinking about an aspect of Kinbote's narrative
point
> of view that I don't think we've touched on yet, that has some bearing on
> the question of who is responsible for the commentary. From the beginning
of
> the foreword to the last page of the commentary, Kinbote speaks to us
pretty
> consistently in the same first-person voice. Whacked, but consistent.
>
> *Except* when he's describing Gradus's progress from Zembla across Europe
to
> New York and on to New Wye. Those sections are written in a jarringly
> omniscient third person, profoundly different from the rest of Kinbote's
> text. In them we are given a great deal of detail that could only have
come
> from somebody who was present. We're told what people were wearing and
given
> extended quotes of conversations and direct observations about what the
> weather was like, what the air smelled like, the "blinding blue of the
sea"
> at Nice, all this in spite of the fact that Gradus is "exceptionally
> unobservant." More than that, we are inside Gradus's consciousness. We
know
> what he had to eat and how it affected his digestive processes, how he was
> feeling, what he was thinking, why he was infuriated by the instruction to
> amuse himself in the South of France.
>
> Now, Kinbote tells us he had an interview (or was it two?) with Gradus
when
> the killer was in custody after the murder, and the implication is that he
> captured all of this narrative detail in that meeting. I don't believe it.
>
> But I'm not sure where that leads. Seems to me there are three
> possibilities:
>
> 1. The writer of the commentary was present. That is, Kinbote was
describing
> first-person experiences, but shifted the narrative to the third person.
> Kinbote = Gradus. Problematical, yes (but what about this puzzle isn't?)
> because if we accept Kinbote's calendar, he was with Shade in New Wye when
> Gradus was traveling from Zembla.
>
> 2. Kinbote (or somebody posing as Kinbote) made the whole thing up. This
> seems to be the default explanation for everything that cannot otherwise
be
> sorted out in this novel. Not as much fun as some of the other
> possibilities.
>
> 3. The wild card, Gerald Emerald, is somehow in play. He is present in at
> least three of Gradus's traveling episodes.
>
> I expect we'll be returning to this question in the coming weeks.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > we are conditioned to suspect the 1st person voice, reduce it
immediately
> to
> > opinion and limited perspective, while the 3rd person voice has that
> > compelling pretension to omniscience. Does this trust in a 3rd person
> voice
> > imply our susceptibility to control by others? If so, with a missed
> > communication, I think in a 3rd person narrative we are less suspicious
of
> > the *origin* of the message. When told by the god-narrator that it
> exists,
> > then we assume that yes, it must exist. If Pynchon is concerned with
> > methods of control, then why assume in his narrative voice one such
> method?
> > Or does he work consciously to undermine that voice?
> >
>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:43:03 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 1)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C34BEB.9DAD6490
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> The nature of reality is a theme introduced and explored both in the =
> "Foreward" to Pale Fire and Chapter One of Vineland.
>
> Early in the "Foreward," Kinbote declares that Shade's poem "contains =
> not one gappy line, not one doubtful reading" (14). To illustrate, =
> Kinbote explains how "our professed Shadeans" dismiss the poem as =
> "disjointed" and textually inadequate, yet they've made this claim =
> "without having seen the manuscript of the poem" [italics are =
> Nabokov's]. Furthermore, Kinbote replies to the statements of Prof. =
> Hurley that the existing Shade poem is "only a small fraction" of the =
> full work Shade intended to write. In response, Kinbote references a =
> 7/25/59 document by Sybil Shade which indicates otherwise, and recalls a =
> conversation he himself had with Shade to demonstrate that, save for the =
> final line, the poem was finished.
>
> Here, Nabokov is deliberately and skillfully using the very nature of =
> literary analysis itself to examine and question the nature of reality. =
> When assessing the value of a work of art, how much must one consider =
> the "drafts" or manuscript of the work versus the Fair Copy? How much =
> credence can one give to a letter written by a secondary source like a =
> spouse (vs. the author himself)? How much credence can be given to an =
> alleged comment made by the author in confidence to a secondary source? =
> Finally, at what point must the reader consider the literary artifact =
> itself a self-contained work of art, a work of art that must be judged =
> on its own merits, without benefit of biographical data, secondary =
> scholarship, drafts of the writing-in-process, etc. (questions many of =
> us wrangled with in our college Lit. Crit. courses, I'm sure)?
>
> This portion of the Foreward alone creates a hall-of-mirrors effect for =
> the reader, who of course must balance these queries with the =
> realization that this is a piece of invented scholarship on a =
> "fictional" poet and poem.
>
> In the opening chapter of Vineland, Pynchon too introduces the theme of =
> reality on a couple of levels: by establishing the dramatic irony that =
> will surround Zoyd's window-jumping event, and by establishing a layer =
> of mystery through the events leading up to it. Zoyd goes through =
> elaborate means to present his antic disposition, including purchasing =
> of the dress, ratting his hair, gassing up CHERYL, etc. On a literal =
> level, the irony surrounding Zoyd's very obvious "put-on" of insanity =
> will take a curious twist when he crashes through a candy sheet window, =
> making it a put-on to himself as much as it is a put-on of the media and =
> the government. Pynchon allows the events of the narrative proper to =
> question the nature of reality: Does the Government really think Zoyd =
> is crazy? Does the media? If the locals (and, of course, the reader) =
> know that this is all a set-up, what does this suggest about how the =
> American Government perceives "reality"?
>
>
> continued . . .
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3420
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: N and homosexuatity
>
> Tonight I've seen Moonchildren in this text. Look at Aunt Maud's tomb.
Luna
> abounds.
>
> But lesbians don't usually abuse little boyz...
>
> David Morris
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:23:57 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2(1) Missed Communications: Beginnings
>
> The sacred I meant comes from Mircea Eliade
>
> Is that right?
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:50:54 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 work (correction)
>
> on 17/7/03 12:46 PM, jbor at jbor@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> > The idea that he is (or that Pynchon is) consciously decking himself out
as
> > a demented housewife, is condescending and chauvinistic, in my opinion.
>
> Not the idea of it, sorry. If that's what either one is doing then they're
> being condescending and chauvinistic, imo.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:05:30 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> Tim and Jasper were talking about narrative voice and authority this
> morning, and it set me thinking about an aspect of Kinbote's narrative
point
> of view that I don't think we've touched on yet, that has some bearing on
> the question of who is responsible for the commentary. From the beginning
of
> the foreword to the last page of the commentary, Kinbote speaks to us
pretty
> consistently in the same first-person voice. Whacked, but consistent.
>
> *Except* when he's describing Gradus's progress from Zembla across Europe
to
> New York and on to New Wye. Those sections are written in a jarringly
> omniscient third person, profoundly different from the rest of Kinbote's
> text. In them we are given a great deal of detail that could only have
come
> from somebody who was present. We're told what people were wearing and
given
> extended quotes of conversations and direct observations about what the
> weather was like, what the air smelled like, the "blinding blue of the
sea"
> at Nice, all this in spite of the fact that Gradus is "exceptionally
> unobservant." More than that, we are inside Gradus's consciousness. We
know
> what he had to eat and how it affected his digestive processes, how he was
> feeling, what he was thinking, why he was infuriated by the instruction to
> amuse himself in the South of France.
>
> Now, Kinbote tells us he had an interview (or was it two?) with Gradus
when
> the killer was in custody after the murder, and the implication is that he
> captured all of this narrative detail in that meeting. I don't believe it.
>
> But I'm not sure where that leads. Seems to me there are three
> possibilities:
>
> 1. The writer of the commentary was present. That is, Kinbote was
describing
> first-person experiences, but shifted the narrative to the third person.
> Kinbote = Gradus. Problematical, yes (but what about this puzzle isn't?)
> because if we accept Kinbote's calendar, he was with Shade in New Wye when
> Gradus was traveling from Zembla.
>
> 2. Kinbote (or somebody posing as Kinbote) made the whole thing up. This
> seems to be the default explanation for everything that cannot otherwise
be
> sorted out in this novel. Not as much fun as some of the other
> possibilities.
>
> 3. The wild card, Gerald Emerald, is somehow in play. He is present in at
> least three of Gradus's traveling episodes.
>
> I expect we'll be returning to this question in the coming weeks.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > we are conditioned to suspect the 1st person voice, reduce it
immediately
> to
> > opinion and limited perspective, while the 3rd person voice has that
> > compelling pretension to omniscience. Does this trust in a 3rd person
> voice
> > imply our susceptibility to control by others? If so, with a missed
> > communication, I think in a 3rd person narrative we are less suspicious
of
> > the *origin* of the message. When told by the god-narrator that it
> exists,
> > then we assume that yes, it must exist. If Pynchon is concerned with
> > methods of control, then why assume in his narrative voice one such
> method?
> > Or does he work consciously to undermine that voice?
> >
>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:43:03 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 1)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C34BEB.9DAD6490
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> The nature of reality is a theme introduced and explored both in the =
> "Foreward" to Pale Fire and Chapter One of Vineland.
>
> Early in the "Foreward," Kinbote declares that Shade's poem "contains =
> not one gappy line, not one doubtful reading" (14). To illustrate, =
> Kinbote explains how "our professed Shadeans" dismiss the poem as =
> "disjointed" and textually inadequate, yet they've made this claim =
> "without having seen the manuscript of the poem" [italics are =
> Nabokov's]. Furthermore, Kinbote replies to the statements of Prof. =
> Hurley that the existing Shade poem is "only a small fraction" of the =
> full work Shade intended to write. In response, Kinbote references a =
> 7/25/59 document by Sybil Shade which indicates otherwise, and recalls a =
> conversation he himself had with Shade to demonstrate that, save for the =
> final line, the poem was finished.
>
> Here, Nabokov is deliberately and skillfully using the very nature of =
> literary analysis itself to examine and question the nature of reality. =
> When assessing the value of a work of art, how much must one consider =
> the "drafts" or manuscript of the work versus the Fair Copy? How much =
> credence can one give to a letter written by a secondary source like a =
> spouse (vs. the author himself)? How much credence can be given to an =
> alleged comment made by the author in confidence to a secondary source? =
> Finally, at what point must the reader consider the literary artifact =
> itself a self-contained work of art, a work of art that must be judged =
> on its own merits, without benefit of biographical data, secondary =
> scholarship, drafts of the writing-in-process, etc. (questions many of =
> us wrangled with in our college Lit. Crit. courses, I'm sure)?
>
> This portion of the Foreward alone creates a hall-of-mirrors effect for =
> the reader, who of course must balance these queries with the =
> realization that this is a piece of invented scholarship on a =
> "fictional" poet and poem.
>
> In the opening chapter of Vineland, Pynchon too introduces the theme of =
> reality on a couple of levels: by establishing the dramatic irony that =
> will surround Zoyd's window-jumping event, and by establishing a layer =
> of mystery through the events leading up to it. Zoyd goes through =
> elaborate means to present his antic disposition, including purchasing =
> of the dress, ratting his hair, gassing up CHERYL, etc. On a literal =
> level, the irony surrounding Zoyd's very obvious "put-on" of insanity =
> will take a curious twist when he crashes through a candy sheet window, =
> making it a put-on to himself as much as it is a put-on of the media and =
> the government. Pynchon allows the events of the narrative proper to =
> question the nature of reality: Does the Government really think Zoyd =
> is crazy? Does the media? If the locals (and, of course, the reader) =
> know that this is all a set-up, what does this suggest about how the =
> American Government perceives "reality"?
>
>
> continued . . .
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3420
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.