Dieter Zimmer writes:
Kinbote may have been oblivious to this derivation [the Disa mythology], but Nabokov certainly was not
Am I alone in my puzzlement? Is this some accepted meta-level of meta-narrative analysis where the author/creator, VN, deliberately sets out to confuse the reader about which of VN’s allusions are known or unknown to his creature-characters? This added layer on top of teasing the reader with more direct allusions (searchable by the patient-curious) and, to borrow from a current idiom, possible identity-thefts! At least with the latter, we have His Master’s Voice speaking outside the novel (and oft-cited and taken seriously by leading PF-scholars who grace our list!):
Pale Fire "is full of plums that I keep hoping somebody will find. For instance, the nasty commentator is not an ex-King of Zembla nor is he professor Kinbote. He is professor Botkin, or Botkine, a Russian and a madman.”
All the Tom Thumbs are thereby encouraged, although it does seem to set limits on some of the wilder character-identity interpretations. On the other hand, knowing that the commentator is VN-certified mad does open the door to creative reader fancies. Long may we plum- and cherry-pick.
PS: Let’s not forget VN’s reaction to Mary McCarthy’s dazzling allusion-mining (e.g., the Penguin edition preface). VN welcomed them all, including the ones he had not intended.
Stan Kelly-Bootle