-------- Original Message --------
MR responding to various responses:
JM: I got the feeling that MR is chiding JA, after reaching a conclusion
that JA was "trying to shut down all further attempts to understand the
narrative of the novel." or "couldn't tolerate, and even relish"
theories
with which he was in disagreement. I'd like to avoid the rigmarole of
"taking sides", at this point. So, I'll proceed to other issues related
to
the theme.
Matt seems to have isolated "the narrative of the novel" from other
literary
approaches as if it were possible to critically proceed without their
"ghosts" ( like the "didymus": structure-content, significance-meaning ,
style and ...whatever.) He also returns to the name of only one (
B.Boyd)
among the multipliticy of other authors who equally poured their
visions,
culture, "enthusiasm and engagement" into studying "Pale Fire.", thereby
electing him as a sole authority over the "narrative of the novel" Pale
Fire.
MR: Jansy, I did not intend to chide JA, nor did I intend to anoint BB
as
the sole authority over the narrative. I am sorry if my words were
clumsy
and gave the wrong impression. It is true that I was trying to present a
contrasting view to JA's, but I had hoped I was doing so in a
constructive
way. As for Boyd, I probably should have placed a "for example" after
his
name. I only brought him up because I surmised that JA's original
comments
about the Otherworld were aimed at Boyd's theory in particular. In any
case,
I consider you, Jansy, to be the very model of the kind of reader I was
trying to commend: someone who even though she disagrees with one
conclusion
or another is still eager to see how each theory develops.
JF: The good solver of chess problems (not me!) enjoys not just the
key, but
also the "play", including the failed attempts to mate and the failed
defenses against the key.
MR: Agreed. And if these "false vistas" are placed there by the author,
then
we had better go ahead and explore them. They may not take us where we
wanted to go, but they are still a worthwhile destination.
SD: Mea culpa! This line of thought embraces the taboo of considering
"the author's intent"; worse insists that the work-owning author knew
his intention, accomplished it either well or poorly, and created
works limited by the constraints of time, place and station. So be it
- the pendulum swings.
MR: When considering the work of most other authors, I don't think
authorial
intention is very interesting, but VN's novels are different because
they so
often take the form of puzzles. And what is the fun of a puzzle if we
have
no regard for the intentions of the designer. I can do the NYTimes
crossword
in a flash if I don't bother to worry if the answers match the
questions!
LH: I read your previous posts about your "incest" theory and I take
advantage of your welcoming objections to criticize it. At first blush,
your idea seemed fairly attractive to me, because I think too that
there is
something not absolutely all right about Hazel and her father. But when
put
back in context, I'm afraid your theory collapses: this idea of a Shade-
Hazel incestuous relationship destroys the very coherence of the novel
and
as far as I can see, doesn't add anything to its meaning.
On the contrary, it turns it into a chaos; if there is such a
relationship between Shade and his daughter, even if it doesn't amount
to
more than John Shade's secretly lusting after his daughter, what do we
make
of his love (spiritual, sensuous, tender) for his wife? Given Shade's
description of Hazel, is it likely, is it plausible that he might
desire
her?
MR: Thank you, Laurence, for all of your fine thoughts and questions. I
am
working on some answers to these, but I think I'd better get all the
evidence together in one place before I go deeper into it. I agree with
you
that there is plenty of evidence in the text to support the notion "that
some sort of parellel, some sort of identity between Shade and Kinbote
is
showing through, however hard Shade tries to erase it." I do not,
however,
dismiss so easily the notion the Shade and Kinbote share a body.
Indeed, I
think my theory about Hazel works best when we finally understand that
Kinbote is Shade's kinbote--his expiation for the death of his child,
for
which he feels responsible. But alas, I am starting to go where I said I
would not. But let me say again that I am grateful for your thoughts
and for
the thoughts of all who responded to my probably too-haphazard post.
Best,
Matt Roth