Subject
Re: THOUGHTS: Roth/DeRewal article in NOJ, Part 1
From
Date
Body
Jerry Friedman writes:
Like others, I've found a great deal of interest in Matt Roth's and
Tiffany DeRewal's close reading of /Pale Fire/. I have a lot to say
about it, so I'll submit one part at a time (and with apologies for two
long posts in one day).
I agree with Jim Twiggs that the multiple-personality theory solves the
main objection to the Shadean theory: no one would act the way Shade
would need to. Of course a crazy person might act that way. It also
sidesteps my argument that the inconsistencies in Kinbote's account make
him so unreliable that no "real story" is believable. Their Kinbote is
perfectly unreliable, but their Shade is not, and thus they provide a
reason for "saving" the reliability of the poem.
Unfortunately, I don't find their evidence convincing, and though I
hate to say it, the rest of this comment and the one that follows will
consist mostly of objections.
Their paper comments on some of the "covert concords" between Shade and
Kinbote that Brian Boyd listed. For instance, Shade, Kinbote, and
Gradus have the same birthday. When I suggested that Kinbote lies to
embarrass Sybil when he tells her this is his birthday (n. 181--I could
have added that he corroborates the date in n. 275), Matt answered that
he saw no reason to doubt Kinbote here. But Kinbote is childish and
self-centered; would he really recount many details of that day, and of
his lonely observation of Shade's party, without mentioning that it was
his birthday too? His birthday that he believes had once been
celebrated with fireworks (an "illumination")? I think that's a strong
reason for doubt.
Matt and Tiffany point out that Hazel's ghostly influence doesn't
explain the coincidence of Shade's clockwork toy and Kinbote's gardener,
but Shadean theories don't explain it any better than the
"straightforward" Kinbote-is-Botkin theory. If the toy and the person
are both "real", then the coincidence is beyond any characters' control;
if not, Kinbote could have made up the toy or the gardener or both, or
Shade could have made up at least the gardener's wheelbarrow as a
private reminiscence of his toy.
The paper mentions Charles Nicol's idea that there are three waxwings
at the beginning of the poem. I think it works fine with only two; the
shadow lives on "as our shadows still walk without us" (Foreword). It's
a fantasy or visionary image.
They quote Brian Boyd's argument that Zembla must have existed before
Kinbote read the poem; otherwise Kinbote wouldn't have been
disappointed. This is reasonable with Brian's largely reliable Kinbote.
But I don't think one can make such an argument about Matt and
Tiffany's wildly unreliable Kinbote (even though I agree that he's
unreliable). If he could invent the other things they credit to him, he
could invent his disappointment.
As I've said, I like the connections with werewolves (not just because
I pointed out a small one), and I hope Matt will develop this at greater
length, though my interpretation is different from his.
I'm highly impressed by their scholarship in finding out about
Nabokov's interest in nineteenth-century "psychical" research and
particularly in the case of Ansel Bourne. I can see some resemblances
that they point out, and they convinced me that Bourne may have been one
of the sources for Shade. This greatly strengthens their case, as mere
references to double identities, such as "my versipel", could refer to
Botkin/Kinbote. But I also see important differences between Shade and
Bourne. For instance, they compare Bourne's fit of perceiving
nothingness to Shade's fits in childhood. But Shade doesn't see
nothing; he sees blackness—and "[t]hat blackness was sublime". All
colors make him happy, after all. Bourne perceived nothing—not even
blackness is mentioned--and was miserable in a silent universe. Shade
describes his perceptions of his body and of distant times and places;
he's still connected to reality. Kinbote's guess that Shade's fits
were epilepsy and the researcher Richard Hodgson's identical
conclusion about Bourne are unsurprising, as epilepsy seems a natural
diagnosis for sudden temporary unconsciousness without any obvious
cause.
Matt and Tiffany quote Myers's theory that somnambulism can develop
into a secondary personality. But in Shade's sleepwalking as well as in
his childhood fits and near-death vision, there's no trace of anything
Kinbotean. He doesn't remember his possibly Russian mother, invent
distant kingdoms, imagine delicate-looking youths, or automatically
write essays that start with Pope but end up about himself. Instead,
he's always Shade, and the common feature of his experiences is a
suggestion of a vision transcending his world. When he describes
himself as dividing in two, in the sleepwalking episode and the way he
writes poetry, both halves are Shade, not some repressed self seeking
release.
That must be enough for now.
Jerry Friedman
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/
Like others, I've found a great deal of interest in Matt Roth's and
Tiffany DeRewal's close reading of /Pale Fire/. I have a lot to say
about it, so I'll submit one part at a time (and with apologies for two
long posts in one day).
I agree with Jim Twiggs that the multiple-personality theory solves the
main objection to the Shadean theory: no one would act the way Shade
would need to. Of course a crazy person might act that way. It also
sidesteps my argument that the inconsistencies in Kinbote's account make
him so unreliable that no "real story" is believable. Their Kinbote is
perfectly unreliable, but their Shade is not, and thus they provide a
reason for "saving" the reliability of the poem.
Unfortunately, I don't find their evidence convincing, and though I
hate to say it, the rest of this comment and the one that follows will
consist mostly of objections.
Their paper comments on some of the "covert concords" between Shade and
Kinbote that Brian Boyd listed. For instance, Shade, Kinbote, and
Gradus have the same birthday. When I suggested that Kinbote lies to
embarrass Sybil when he tells her this is his birthday (n. 181--I could
have added that he corroborates the date in n. 275), Matt answered that
he saw no reason to doubt Kinbote here. But Kinbote is childish and
self-centered; would he really recount many details of that day, and of
his lonely observation of Shade's party, without mentioning that it was
his birthday too? His birthday that he believes had once been
celebrated with fireworks (an "illumination")? I think that's a strong
reason for doubt.
Matt and Tiffany point out that Hazel's ghostly influence doesn't
explain the coincidence of Shade's clockwork toy and Kinbote's gardener,
but Shadean theories don't explain it any better than the
"straightforward" Kinbote-is-Botkin theory. If the toy and the person
are both "real", then the coincidence is beyond any characters' control;
if not, Kinbote could have made up the toy or the gardener or both, or
Shade could have made up at least the gardener's wheelbarrow as a
private reminiscence of his toy.
The paper mentions Charles Nicol's idea that there are three waxwings
at the beginning of the poem. I think it works fine with only two; the
shadow lives on "as our shadows still walk without us" (Foreword). It's
a fantasy or visionary image.
They quote Brian Boyd's argument that Zembla must have existed before
Kinbote read the poem; otherwise Kinbote wouldn't have been
disappointed. This is reasonable with Brian's largely reliable Kinbote.
But I don't think one can make such an argument about Matt and
Tiffany's wildly unreliable Kinbote (even though I agree that he's
unreliable). If he could invent the other things they credit to him, he
could invent his disappointment.
As I've said, I like the connections with werewolves (not just because
I pointed out a small one), and I hope Matt will develop this at greater
length, though my interpretation is different from his.
I'm highly impressed by their scholarship in finding out about
Nabokov's interest in nineteenth-century "psychical" research and
particularly in the case of Ansel Bourne. I can see some resemblances
that they point out, and they convinced me that Bourne may have been one
of the sources for Shade. This greatly strengthens their case, as mere
references to double identities, such as "my versipel", could refer to
Botkin/Kinbote. But I also see important differences between Shade and
Bourne. For instance, they compare Bourne's fit of perceiving
nothingness to Shade's fits in childhood. But Shade doesn't see
nothing; he sees blackness—and "[t]hat blackness was sublime". All
colors make him happy, after all. Bourne perceived nothing—not even
blackness is mentioned--and was miserable in a silent universe. Shade
describes his perceptions of his body and of distant times and places;
he's still connected to reality. Kinbote's guess that Shade's fits
were epilepsy and the researcher Richard Hodgson's identical
conclusion about Bourne are unsurprising, as epilepsy seems a natural
diagnosis for sudden temporary unconsciousness without any obvious
cause.
Matt and Tiffany quote Myers's theory that somnambulism can develop
into a secondary personality. But in Shade's sleepwalking as well as in
his childhood fits and near-death vision, there's no trace of anything
Kinbotean. He doesn't remember his possibly Russian mother, invent
distant kingdoms, imagine delicate-looking youths, or automatically
write essays that start with Pope but end up about himself. Instead,
he's always Shade, and the common feature of his experiences is a
suggestion of a vision transcending his world. When he describes
himself as dividing in two, in the sleepwalking episode and the way he
writes poetry, both halves are Shade, not some repressed self seeking
release.
That must be enough for now.
Jerry Friedman
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/