Subject
Re: THOUGHTS: the need for climax in Canto 4
From
Date
Body
In a message dated 5/8/2010 12:49:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
STADLEN@AOL.COM writes:
>
> In a message dated 07/05/2010 23:55:00 GMT Daylight Time, Rsgwynn1@CS.COM
> writes:
>
> >> As I've said before, the omission of the last line by Shade (and the
>> "last" line is probably the first) is part of the poem's clearly symmetrical
>> structure. Leaving off this line this would make line 500 the central
>> line of 999 (only in a poem with an odd number of lines can there be a
>> central line). This line the marks Hazel's death, and Hazel's death is clearly
>> the "center" of the poem.
>
>
> This is a non-sequitur. It answers the questions "Why would there have
> been a line 1000?" and "Why would line 1000 have been the last line?" It does
> not answer my question: <<Why, why, why "presumably a repetition of the
> first line at the end"? >>
>
> The poem appears symmetrical in certain respects. This no more proves
> line 1000 = line 1 than that line 999 = line 2. And the poem is not obviously
> circular or cyclical like Finnegans Wake.
>
> As I said: <<We have only Kinbote's word for it. Why should we accept it?
> He doesn't even claim Shade told him there would be such a repetition. As
> I pointed out last time round, the poem would read very oddly if it did in
> fact end with the first line. Was my instigation of the Great Competition
> on NABOKV-L to compose a last (not equal to first) line all in vain? >>
>
> Perhaps the line would have been a despairing glance into the Abyss:
>
> "So will the Competition be in vain?"
>
> Or, as our revered editor SES more sublimely put it, subtly inverting
> past and future in a clear allusion to Eliot's meditation on time in Burnt
> Norton:
>
> <<Was vying for a last line all in vain? >>
>
> Anthony Stadlen
>
>
> Anthony Stadlen
> "Oakleigh"
> 2A Alexandra Avenue
> GB - London N22 7XE
> Tel.: +44 (0) 20 8888 6857
> Email: stadlen@aol.com
> Visit: "Existential Psychotherapy &Inner Circle Seminars" at
> http://anthonystadlen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
I didn't phrase that very well, did I? I think that JS fully intended to
end at 999. It's for the reader to complete the couplet, if he or she is so
inclined; it would have been easy enough for JS to write the line if he'd
wanted to. Kinbote's supposition is as good as anyone's, as the choice of
rhyme does send us back to the beginning. I frankly think that all of JS's
musings about the afterlife have brought him no resolution, only a "faint
hope." Thus, let the poem end without conclusion or say, essentially, "back to
square one."
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
STADLEN@AOL.COM writes:
>
> In a message dated 07/05/2010 23:55:00 GMT Daylight Time, Rsgwynn1@CS.COM
> writes:
>
> >> As I've said before, the omission of the last line by Shade (and the
>> "last" line is probably the first) is part of the poem's clearly symmetrical
>> structure. Leaving off this line this would make line 500 the central
>> line of 999 (only in a poem with an odd number of lines can there be a
>> central line). This line the marks Hazel's death, and Hazel's death is clearly
>> the "center" of the poem.
>
>
> This is a non-sequitur. It answers the questions "Why would there have
> been a line 1000?" and "Why would line 1000 have been the last line?" It does
> not answer my question: <<Why, why, why "presumably a repetition of the
> first line at the end"? >>
>
> The poem appears symmetrical in certain respects. This no more proves
> line 1000 = line 1 than that line 999 = line 2. And the poem is not obviously
> circular or cyclical like Finnegans Wake.
>
> As I said: <<We have only Kinbote's word for it. Why should we accept it?
> He doesn't even claim Shade told him there would be such a repetition. As
> I pointed out last time round, the poem would read very oddly if it did in
> fact end with the first line. Was my instigation of the Great Competition
> on NABOKV-L to compose a last (not equal to first) line all in vain? >>
>
> Perhaps the line would have been a despairing glance into the Abyss:
>
> "So will the Competition be in vain?"
>
> Or, as our revered editor SES more sublimely put it, subtly inverting
> past and future in a clear allusion to Eliot's meditation on time in Burnt
> Norton:
>
> <<Was vying for a last line all in vain? >>
>
> Anthony Stadlen
>
>
> Anthony Stadlen
> "Oakleigh"
> 2A Alexandra Avenue
> GB - London N22 7XE
> Tel.: +44 (0) 20 8888 6857
> Email: stadlen@aol.com
> Visit: "Existential Psychotherapy &Inner Circle Seminars" at
> http://anthonystadlen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
I didn't phrase that very well, did I? I think that JS fully intended to
end at 999. It's for the reader to complete the couplet, if he or she is so
inclined; it would have been easy enough for JS to write the line if he'd
wanted to. Kinbote's supposition is as good as anyone's, as the choice of
rhyme does send us back to the beginning. I frankly think that all of JS's
musings about the afterlife have brought him no resolution, only a "faint
hope." Thus, let the poem end without conclusion or say, essentially, "back to
square one."
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/