EDNote: another interpretation that would fit with the facts mentioned
below is one I heard recently--that Botkin/Kinbote is responsible for
all the uncanny elements in "PF," which he did not write but does
distort; and that he is much cleverer and more capable than he lets
on.š However, I don't think we're going to resolve this matter on the
list, and I strongly urge that we not pursue it anew for awhile--until,
I'd suggest, the next round of peer-reviewed theories appear in
academic journals or books. ~SB
-------- Original Message --------
Dear participants -
My personal opinion is that it is very typical for "integrationist"
arguments:
every shadow (not half-shade, but 1/ 2^{10} shade) that seems to support
"integrationist" point of view is mentioned and carefully counted, while
very heavy arguments against are left unanswered. In this particular
case the remark (that from certain point of view slightly supports
"integrationist" argument) brings at the same time several difficulties
to the same argument - first of all, what are our reasons to consider
it as
IMPORTANT to this issue. They are OUR reasons and only slightly
supported
by the text. If we try to consider the hierarchy of motives prompting
to include this line then the connections with Hazel's death and
with "air de temps" seem much more important than Kinbote/Shade
relationship. It might be amusing to VN to include it as another case
of "involunatry prophecy" in the poem (the gardener toy is another),
or as another provocation for future scholars. (Again, in the hierarchy
of motives it seems more important.) The "integrationst" approach would
discard all these motives in favor of one - their own theory. It's
like give priority to astrology before meteorology. Of course the
astrologists would say that "stars" (in their sense) are more important
than
weather.
> DZ introduced a new argument for the "integrationalistic" issue
when he
> asked if Shade had intended to humor Kinbote (in my opinion, this
would be
> very unlikely), or the reverse, Kinbote telepathically prompting
Shade
> ...or VN's playing with the idea that both Shade and CK were just
one and
> the same.
Best regards,
Sergei Soloviev
[SS then sent this follow-up]:
In the comments to the line 231 we read "a beautiful variant, with one
curious gap":
...
Poor old man Swift, poor ---, poor Baudelaire.
If, for Shade, "e" in Baudelaire is mute, then a name that fits
would be Kinbote. (As he hints.) If "e" is not mute, it would be Shade.
The reference to the line 501 adds to the ambiguity:
L'if, lifeless tree! Your great Maybe, Rabelais
Clearly, here "e" in Rabelais is mute, as indicates Kinbote, and this
apparently supports the point that for Shade "e" in Baudelaire is mute.
But in the next line
... I.P.H., a lay
this mute "e" pops up! My own interpretation is that all this indicates
rather constant presence of the author (VN) and the "play" goes far
beyond the text... But other interpretations are possible.
Best regards,
Sergei
Sea