Subject
More from JF to CK
From
Date
Body
> Dear Jerry,
>
> This is fun, so let's continue.
I'm certainly enjoying it.
> Saying that a certain alter ego is a parasite doesn't mean that all
> parasites are alter egos.
>
> Of course, but doesn't it indicate that VN had the idea that an
> alternate
> personality could be described as a parasite on the primary
personality?
> It
> is an idiosyncratic idea of VN's, and it seems like more than
> coincidence
> that he should use the same image in a possibly similar situation
> unintentionally. Not impossible though, of course.
It's an interesting connection, at least.
...
> I'll believe they struggle for control and spy, but presenting that
as
> banging garbage cans is too much for my willing suspension of
disbelief
> (as Andrew Brown also quoted).
>
> The garbage banging is a metaphor for Kinbote's verging toward
Shade's
> consciousness (and Sybil's too).
Is it a metaphor in the usual sense? If you say your love is
a red, red rose, you're consciously thinking about the
similarities. Are you envisioning that Kinbote remembers verging
towards Shade's consciousness inside him and deliberately
decides to portray that as spying on the Shades and banging
garbage cans? Or that he unconsciously distorts his memory
of one into the other? Either one breaks my WSOD (as the science-
fiction fans call it on Usenet).
...
> I'm still having trouble with someone (Shade? Kinbote?) musing to
> himself
> and presenting it as a conversation with his other personality, or
with
> the
> two personalities calmly discussing the afterlife (for example).
>
> I can think of at least one other literary example of this - - isn't
> Dodgson's Alice forever arguing with herself when there are no
animals
> about
> to talk to?
Quite different, in my view, from a sufferer from MPD having
an internal conversation. The former happens a lot in reality
as well as fiction (smacking oneself on the forehead, "Idiot!");
the latter is unprecedented.
> What I see as a problem is your rejection of most of Kinbote's
> statements as
> fabrication combined with your belief in other statements as
> metaphorical
> versions of fictional truth--without any criterion except whether
they
> fit your theory.
>
> I might be able to better respond if you gave an example of my
> arbitrariness?
My whole note about n. 991 was such as example, trying to show
how you'd have to read one sentence as nonsense, the next as
fact, and the next as disguised fact, like the proverbial
chameleon on plaid.
> But in general it seems to me that Kinbote is believable when
> he talks about Shade and his family (who was born when, what their
names
> are, what they were like, who had an affair with whom)
(WIth the exception of Carolyn Shade's nationality.)
> and less believable
> when he recounts events that he claims he took part in. In other
words
> he
> does know a lot about Shade and is truthful on that subject, but his
> memories of Zembla and his visit to New Wye or those of a maniac.
But you do absolutely believe some things that he claims he took
part in, as that Shade looked like a tipsy witch. My
methodological objection is that you have no grounds for selecting
those few words of fact on a page of what you consider falsehood.
> I'm still hoping for Dmitri Nabokov to say, "Yes, my father did
mention
> something like that," though.
> Jerry Friedman
>
> Wishful thinking, I fear. But thanks for the pleasant conversation.
My pleasure.
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
>
> This is fun, so let's continue.
I'm certainly enjoying it.
> Saying that a certain alter ego is a parasite doesn't mean that all
> parasites are alter egos.
>
> Of course, but doesn't it indicate that VN had the idea that an
> alternate
> personality could be described as a parasite on the primary
personality?
> It
> is an idiosyncratic idea of VN's, and it seems like more than
> coincidence
> that he should use the same image in a possibly similar situation
> unintentionally. Not impossible though, of course.
It's an interesting connection, at least.
...
> I'll believe they struggle for control and spy, but presenting that
as
> banging garbage cans is too much for my willing suspension of
disbelief
> (as Andrew Brown also quoted).
>
> The garbage banging is a metaphor for Kinbote's verging toward
Shade's
> consciousness (and Sybil's too).
Is it a metaphor in the usual sense? If you say your love is
a red, red rose, you're consciously thinking about the
similarities. Are you envisioning that Kinbote remembers verging
towards Shade's consciousness inside him and deliberately
decides to portray that as spying on the Shades and banging
garbage cans? Or that he unconsciously distorts his memory
of one into the other? Either one breaks my WSOD (as the science-
fiction fans call it on Usenet).
...
> I'm still having trouble with someone (Shade? Kinbote?) musing to
> himself
> and presenting it as a conversation with his other personality, or
with
> the
> two personalities calmly discussing the afterlife (for example).
>
> I can think of at least one other literary example of this - - isn't
> Dodgson's Alice forever arguing with herself when there are no
animals
> about
> to talk to?
Quite different, in my view, from a sufferer from MPD having
an internal conversation. The former happens a lot in reality
as well as fiction (smacking oneself on the forehead, "Idiot!");
the latter is unprecedented.
> What I see as a problem is your rejection of most of Kinbote's
> statements as
> fabrication combined with your belief in other statements as
> metaphorical
> versions of fictional truth--without any criterion except whether
they
> fit your theory.
>
> I might be able to better respond if you gave an example of my
> arbitrariness?
My whole note about n. 991 was such as example, trying to show
how you'd have to read one sentence as nonsense, the next as
fact, and the next as disguised fact, like the proverbial
chameleon on plaid.
> But in general it seems to me that Kinbote is believable when
> he talks about Shade and his family (who was born when, what their
names
> are, what they were like, who had an affair with whom)
(WIth the exception of Carolyn Shade's nationality.)
> and less believable
> when he recounts events that he claims he took part in. In other
words
> he
> does know a lot about Shade and is truthful on that subject, but his
> memories of Zembla and his visit to New Wye or those of a maniac.
But you do absolutely believe some things that he claims he took
part in, as that Shade looked like a tipsy witch. My
methodological objection is that you have no grounds for selecting
those few words of fact on a page of what you consider falsehood.
> I'm still hoping for Dmitri Nabokov to say, "Yes, my father did
mention
> something like that," though.
> Jerry Friedman
>
> Wishful thinking, I fear. But thanks for the pleasant conversation.
My pleasure.
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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