Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3422 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3422
>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:50:57 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 1)
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Tim Strzechowski
> >
> > 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)?
> >
> [...]
>
>
> Admirable work, Tim. Perhaps we should note that PF was written while
most
> American college lit departments were rooted in New Criticism. I wonder
> what we can make of Kinbote's decidedly *non* New Critic approach to "Pale
> Fire", especially when taken in conjunction with its allusions to Eliot,
who
> wrote that a poem should be treated "primarily as poetry and not another
> thing," independent and self-contained. While K seems to give the New
> Critics ample justification for their principles, what to make of _Pale
> Fire_ the novel, which *is* poetry and "another thing"? Did VN agree with
> the New Critics? Does PF help prove their case or does it work to refute
> it?
>
> Jasper
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:03:47 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Don Corathers
> >
> > 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
>
> I agree -- and had the same impression -- that the narrator knows too much
> about Gradus and his story, especially toward the end when Gradus becomes
> fully realized -- er real-ized? -- and the level of detail grows quite
> vivid. Remember though that Kinbote starts out describing Charles II in
> third person as well, although in that case he sometimes slips into first
> person -- a pretty straightforward clue that Charles and Kinbote are the
> same. I wonder if we can take the example of Charles and use it to
sponsor
> theories about Gradus?
>
> Did somebody say Emerald? My pet theory at present is that since Kinbote
> has a paranoid persecution complex centering on Emerald, whom he claims
has
> been "pursuing him with brutal practical jokes" (309), while inventing
> Charles/Zembla he naturally selects Emerald to sponsor Gradus as an agent.
>
> Jasper
>
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> <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. ... I expect we'll be returning to this
> question in the coming weeks.>>
>
> Also perhaps pertinent to this: if one assumes or
> believes that Gradus is actually Jack Grey, out to
> kill Judge Goldsworth, then the entirety of the Gradus
> material--the very idea of Gradus--is invented by
> Kinbote only after Shade is killed.
>
> By the way, I find this thread fascinating. I wish I had something
> substantive to contribute to it, but I'm just having too much fun watching
> it play out!
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:01:50 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C34C39.AD6D8AB0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Yes, and if anything the nature of reality is more so a theme that is =
> explored through the Pynchon text via its use of traditional narrative =
> elements of character, plot, symbol, and so forth, whereas in Nabokov =
> the nature of reality becomes a function of the text itself. I find it =
> interesting that both authors can explore this same theme, in such =
> unique ways, but using different narrative methodology.
>
> In Pale Fire we are completely at sea. Each word in the book might =
> have been written, edited, planted, manipulated, colored or at least =
> shaded by any one of (at least) three candidate narrators. Trust no one.
>
> The correspondence between authority and author is right around a =
> hundred percent in Vineland, imo. The narrator is omniscient but just a =
> little choosy about what he wants to reveal, and when to reveal it. =
> Sometimes, as in "He sure would," it suits his purposes to let us know =
> what's *going* to happen. Whatever he says, he's not shitting you.
>
> Don Corathers
>>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> - --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto Three,
are
> identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
> >
> > Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
survival of
> Hazel.
>
> No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that to
be
> someone's favorite.
>
> > He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the immediately
> following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility. Why
> might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
>
> I'm stumped.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org> wrote:
> >
> > I agree -- and had the same impression -- that the narrator knows too
much
> about Gradus and his story, especially toward the end when Gradus becomes
fully
> realized -- er real-ized? -- and the level of detail grows quite vivid.
>
> We readers know that there is no possible way for ANYONE to know as much
about
> Gradus's journey as Kinbote relates to us - UNLESS the speaker was Gradus.
> Otherwise I think we have to chalk it up to Kinbote's imagination. This
whole
> question brings to mind Stencil's "Stecilizations."
>
> David Morris
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:45:38 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> > No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that
to be
> > someone's favorite.
>
> Well, the weird thing is, I think Canto II is the best canto, and it is
> certainly *my* favorite. Although I don't presume to guess anyone else's
> literary tastes, I wouldn't be surprised if a general study showed that a
> majority of readers liked Canto II the best as well -- it being the most
> moving, personal, and generally interesting of the four.
>
> That's why I think Kinbote -- who, being utterly uninterested in the real
> gist of Shade's poem -- is addressing "you" to future readers in a tone of
> slightly bitter anticipation....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 09:33, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto
Three, are
> > identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
> > >
> > > Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> > possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
survival of
> > Hazel.
> >
> > No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that
to be
> > someone's favorite.
>
> Unless one's is seeking liberation from the the slings and arrows of
> outrageous fortune.
>
> Who might not his own quietus make with a bare bodkin.
>
> Had not the everlasting set his mark against self slaughter. (roughly)
>
> Perhaps Hazel is an atheist.
>
>
>
> >
> > > He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the
immediately
> > following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility.
Why
> > might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
> >
> > I'm stumped.
> >
> > David Morris
>--------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: From the N-list
>
> http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no6/gessen.html
>
> Like many newly minted Americans, Nabokov worked to reinvent himself upon
new
> shores--but he did not fall upon us from the sky. What should be made
clear
> about his Russian work is that his poetry was straightforwardly lyrical,
> emphatic, and peculiarly lacking in the sleights and feints we associate
with
> Nabokov--it is not, in short, very interesting poetry.
>
> _________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:49:13 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus
>
> > Also perhaps pertinent to this: if one assumes or
> > believes that Gradus is actually Jack Grey, out to
> > kill Judge Goldsworth, then the entirety of the Gradus
> > material--the very idea of Gradus--is invented by
> > Kinbote only after Shade is killed.
>
> Right. Nice insight. Course, if you take Kinbote's story at face value and
accept that there really was an assassin named Gradus, which I don't, but if
you did then Kinbote wouldn't have become aware of his existence until the
shooting.
>
> I also should have noted, as Jasper pointed out, Kinbote's gradual move
from third person to first in references to Charles the Beloved. It does
seem to be a meaningful parallel, slipping into one new identity as an old
one is shed.
>
> It's also suggestive that the King and Gradus followed similar paths in
traveling from Zembla to New Wye. If we assume, as seems likely, that
Kinbote (Botkin?) created both of these characters out of his own
experience, embellishing one with the trappings of royalty and the other
with a dark conspiracy, it should be interesting to compare their two
travelogues.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: N and homosexuatity
>
> - --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:X2X9c50aAx0J:www.reec.uiuc.edu/srl/Rozanov/etkind.pdf+nabokov+homosexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> > I should have noted that the paper centers on Rozanov. Nabokov's use of
> Rozanov is discussed toward the end. Moonlight People.
>
> This article was very helpful. When we get to Canto One it will quickly
be
> demonstrated that Aunt Maud was a Moonlight person, which seems to me to
argue
> aginst her having molested young Shade. I don't think dykes (excuse this
term,
> but I know several women who refer to themselves as such) like little boys
as
> sex partners (any more than K would like a nymphet). Still the subject of
a
> young innocent being "corrupted" by a larger and older entity is in the
text at
> more than one place, both in the poem and in the Commentary. If N had
Maud
> going after youg Shade then I don't believe he "got it right."
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3422
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3422
>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:50:57 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 1)
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Tim Strzechowski
> >
> > 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)?
> >
> [...]
>
>
> Admirable work, Tim. Perhaps we should note that PF was written while
most
> American college lit departments were rooted in New Criticism. I wonder
> what we can make of Kinbote's decidedly *non* New Critic approach to "Pale
> Fire", especially when taken in conjunction with its allusions to Eliot,
who
> wrote that a poem should be treated "primarily as poetry and not another
> thing," independent and self-contained. While K seems to give the New
> Critics ample justification for their principles, what to make of _Pale
> Fire_ the novel, which *is* poetry and "another thing"? Did VN agree with
> the New Critics? Does PF help prove their case or does it work to refute
> it?
>
> Jasper
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:03:47 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On
> > Behalf Of Don Corathers
> >
> > 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
>
> I agree -- and had the same impression -- that the narrator knows too much
> about Gradus and his story, especially toward the end when Gradus becomes
> fully realized -- er real-ized? -- and the level of detail grows quite
> vivid. Remember though that Kinbote starts out describing Charles II in
> third person as well, although in that case he sometimes slips into first
> person -- a pretty straightforward clue that Charles and Kinbote are the
> same. I wonder if we can take the example of Charles and use it to
sponsor
> theories about Gradus?
>
> Did somebody say Emerald? My pet theory at present is that since Kinbote
> has a paranoid persecution complex centering on Emerald, whom he claims
has
> been "pursuing him with brutal practical jokes" (309), while inventing
> Charles/Zembla he naturally selects Emerald to sponsor Gradus as an agent.
>
> Jasper
>
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> <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. ... I expect we'll be returning to this
> question in the coming weeks.>>
>
> Also perhaps pertinent to this: if one assumes or
> believes that Gradus is actually Jack Grey, out to
> kill Judge Goldsworth, then the entirety of the Gradus
> material--the very idea of Gradus--is invented by
> Kinbote only after Shade is killed.
>
> By the way, I find this thread fascinating. I wish I had something
> substantive to contribute to it, but I'm just having too much fun watching
> it play out!
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:01:50 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C34C39.AD6D8AB0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Yes, and if anything the nature of reality is more so a theme that is =
> explored through the Pynchon text via its use of traditional narrative =
> elements of character, plot, symbol, and so forth, whereas in Nabokov =
> the nature of reality becomes a function of the text itself. I find it =
> interesting that both authors can explore this same theme, in such =
> unique ways, but using different narrative methodology.
>
> In Pale Fire we are completely at sea. Each word in the book might =
> have been written, edited, planted, manipulated, colored or at least =
> shaded by any one of (at least) three candidate narrators. Trust no one.
>
> The correspondence between authority and author is right around a =
> hundred percent in Vineland, imo. The narrator is omniscient but just a =
> little choosy about what he wants to reveal, and when to reveal it. =
> Sometimes, as in "He sure would," it suits his purposes to let us know =
> what's *going* to happen. Whatever he says, he's not shitting you.
>
> Don Corathers
>>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> - --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto Three,
are
> identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
> >
> > Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
survival of
> Hazel.
>
> No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that to
be
> someone's favorite.
>
> > He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the immediately
> following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility. Why
> might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
>
> I'm stumped.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org> wrote:
> >
> > I agree -- and had the same impression -- that the narrator knows too
much
> about Gradus and his story, especially toward the end when Gradus becomes
fully
> realized -- er real-ized? -- and the level of detail grows quite vivid.
>
> We readers know that there is no possible way for ANYONE to know as much
about
> Gradus's journey as Kinbote relates to us - UNLESS the speaker was Gradus.
> Otherwise I think we have to chalk it up to Kinbote's imagination. This
whole
> question brings to mind Stencil's "Stecilizations."
>
> David Morris
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:45:38 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> > No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that
to be
> > someone's favorite.
>
> Well, the weird thing is, I think Canto II is the best canto, and it is
> certainly *my* favorite. Although I don't presume to guess anyone else's
> literary tastes, I wouldn't be surprised if a general study showed that a
> majority of readers liked Canto II the best as well -- it being the most
> moving, personal, and generally interesting of the four.
>
> That's why I think Kinbote -- who, being utterly uninterested in the real
> gist of Shade's poem -- is addressing "you" to future readers in a tone of
> slightly bitter anticipation....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 09:33, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto
Three, are
> > identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
> > >
> > > Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> > possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
survival of
> > Hazel.
> >
> > No. Canto Two is about Hazel's suicide. It would be strange for that
to be
> > someone's favorite.
>
> Unless one's is seeking liberation from the the slings and arrows of
> outrageous fortune.
>
> Who might not his own quietus make with a bare bodkin.
>
> Had not the everlasting set his mark against self slaughter. (roughly)
>
> Perhaps Hazel is an atheist.
>
>
>
> >
> > > He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the
immediately
> > following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility.
Why
> > might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
> >
> > I'm stumped.
> >
> > David Morris
>--------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: From the N-list
>
> http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no6/gessen.html
>
> Like many newly minted Americans, Nabokov worked to reinvent himself upon
new
> shores--but he did not fall upon us from the sky. What should be made
clear
> about his Russian work is that his poetry was straightforwardly lyrical,
> emphatic, and peculiarly lacking in the sleights and feints we associate
with
> Nabokov--it is not, in short, very interesting poetry.
>
> _________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:49:13 -0400
> From: <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus
>
> > Also perhaps pertinent to this: if one assumes or
> > believes that Gradus is actually Jack Grey, out to
> > kill Judge Goldsworth, then the entirety of the Gradus
> > material--the very idea of Gradus--is invented by
> > Kinbote only after Shade is killed.
>
> Right. Nice insight. Course, if you take Kinbote's story at face value and
accept that there really was an assassin named Gradus, which I don't, but if
you did then Kinbote wouldn't have become aware of his existence until the
shooting.
>
> I also should have noted, as Jasper pointed out, Kinbote's gradual move
from third person to first in references to Charles the Beloved. It does
seem to be a meaningful parallel, slipping into one new identity as an old
one is shed.
>
> It's also suggestive that the King and Gradus followed similar paths in
traveling from Zembla to New Wye. If we assume, as seems likely, that
Kinbote (Botkin?) created both of these characters out of his own
experience, embellishing one with the trappings of royalty and the other
with a dark conspiracy, it should be interesting to compare their two
travelogues.
>
> Don Corathers
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: N and homosexuatity
>
> - --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:X2X9c50aAx0J:www.reec.uiuc.edu/srl/Rozanov/etkind.pdf+nabokov+homosexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> > I should have noted that the paper centers on Rozanov. Nabokov's use of
> Rozanov is discussed toward the end. Moonlight People.
>
> This article was very helpful. When we get to Canto One it will quickly
be
> demonstrated that Aunt Maud was a Moonlight person, which seems to me to
argue
> aginst her having molested young Shade. I don't think dykes (excuse this
term,
> but I know several women who refer to themselves as such) like little boys
as
> sex partners (any more than K would like a nymphet). Still the subject of
a
> young innocent being "corrupted" by a larger and older entity is in the
text at
> more than one place, both in the poem and in the Commentary. If N had
Maud
> going after youg Shade then I don't believe he "got it right."
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3422
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.