Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3460 Pale Fire Canto 2
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3460
>> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:04:10 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto Two: Shade reflects
>
> on 29/7/03 2:29 AM, David Morris wrote:
>
> > Just following this dramatic announcement Shade abruptly (at line 181!)
breaks
> > the poem▓s tone and time. He ZOOMS to the present and to the mundane
task of
> > trimming his nails.
>
> Only just catching up with the Canto Two stuff and rereading. Excellent
> notes by the way, David; thanks. I think that Shade's self-consciousness
> about composing in the present time permeates the poem from the outset.
The
> initial image in Canto One is framed in the past tense, as I think you
> noted. As Shade looks out his bedroom window he recalls this incident with
> the bird flying into the pane and now, in the present time of the poem's
> composition, retrospectively appropriates the incident to circumscribe his
> own life experience in its totality. It might be interesting to predict
what
> the moment of the bird's collison with the glass was for Shade -- I
suspect
> that Hazel's death is a contender, but there are other possibilities too,
> such as his heart attack, or his first youthful seizure.
>
> As the Canto proceeds it's as if he has walked out into the garden and
down
> to the lake (eg. "whilst now" line 43, "[i]t is now" line 54 etc),
following
> the familiar paths of his youth, almost as a deliberate stimulus to the
> poetic composition. Hazel's swing is a "phantom" (57): he remembers the
> place where it once was, but it is no longer there. Back indoors he walks
> from room to room in the house and similarly allows the scenes and rooms
to
> evoke the memories and people of his youth, and uses these memories to
> prompt his current, poetic interpretations and reflections.
>
> best
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:26:52 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> To: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> > >>> the poem achieves its greatness from the ways it is misinterpreted
> > and mishandled by
> > the commentator. <<<
> >
> > Nabokov has written a poem, then made it incredibly difficult for any
> > reader of the poem to read it on its own merits. Kinbote says he has
> > the last word,
> > and the assertion above agrees. Of course, even if we read it
> > independently
> > of Kinbote's offerings, we are then left with our own offerings. Our own
> > forewords and commentaries. Does the poem achieve greatness from the
ways
> > we mishandle and misinterpret it? Is there any value in reading the poem
> > and
> > interpreting it without Kinbote's input? Someone down the street is
making
> > a terrible racket with one of those gas-powered edgers.
> >
>
> > Is there any value in reading the poem and
> > interpreting it without Kinbote's input?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Of course there's "the agnostic poet" (McCarthy, xvii) Shade's lifelong
> quest for the unknown, the "Land behind the Veil" (750) that is told about
> in the poem, his grief about Hazel's suicide. In the light of this search
> his daughter's suicide bears an even bigger tragic, because she might have
> found out the answers to his questions before him.
>
> For me his idea:
>
> I'm reasonably sure that we survive
> and that my darling somewhere is alive
> (978-98)
>
> or the possibility of a "beyond" without a god (btw. which seems
> to be the case in Pynchon's GR too) really is the
> "Gist of the matter" (Comm. line 549), but as this last
> sentence proves it's hard to avoid the "knowledge" from
> the Commentary.
>
> Hazel has committed suicide shortly after Shade had finished his
> "book on Pope" (384), which, as we might assume, is the source
> for Kinbote's Zembla. Mary McCarthy quotes the passage in her essay:
>
> But where th' extreme of vice, was ne'er agreed:
> Ask where's the north? at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
> In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
> At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
> No creature owns it in the first degree,
> But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he;
>
> See the blind beggar dance, the cripple sing,
> The sot a hero, lunatic a king;
> The starving chemist in his golden views
> Supremely blest, the poet in his muse.
>
> That the title of Shade's book is "Supremely Blest"
> we only know from the Commentary.
>
> But it is good to read a little bit more around this part in Pope's
> "An Essay on Man" which of course deals with Providence,
> the monotheistic and Christian idea of God and Man in a universe
> where everything is set up before, but "Heaven from all creatures
> hides the book of Fate" (Epistle One) -- which Shade seems to
> refuse in the poem (99-101; 167-172) and in his discussion with
> Kinbote upon that topic (Commentary to line 549). He seems to
> believe in some kind of eternity with the possibility of an afterlife,
> some ghostly existence or of reincarnation that exceeds the Christian
> belief.
>
> Otto
>
> "Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation.
> Everything science has taught me and continous to teach me,
> strengthens my belief in the continuity of our
> spiritual existence after death."
> Wernher von Braun
> (Gravity's Rainbow, p. 7)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:29:50 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Alexander Pope
>
> "The science of human nature is, like all other sciences, reduced to a few
> clear points: there are not many certain truths in this
> world. (...) If I could flatter myself that this Essay has any merit, it
is
> in steering betwixt the extremes of doctrines seemingly opposite (...)."
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.design
>
> I. Say first, of God above, or man below
> What can we reason, but from what we know?
> Of man, what see we but his station here,
> From which to reason, or to which refer?
> Through worlds unnumbered though the God be known,
> 'Tis ours to trace Him only in our own.
> He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
> See worlds on worlds compose one universe,
> Observe how system into system runs,
> What other planets circle other suns,
> What varied being peoples every star,
> May tell why Heaven has made us as we are.
> But of this frame, the bearings, and the ties,
> The strong connections, nice dependencies,
> Gradations just, has thy pervading soul
> Looked through? or can a part contain the whole?
> Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
> And drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?
>
> (...)
>
> III. Heaven from all creatures hides the book of Fate,
> All but the page prescribed, their present state:
> From brutes what men, from men what spirits know:
> Or who could suffer being here below?
> The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed to-day,
> Had he thy reason, would he skip and play?
> Pleased to the last, he crops the flowery food,
> And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood.
> Oh, blindness to the future! kindly given,
> That each may fill the circle, marked by Heaven:
> Who sees with equal eye, as God of all,
> A hero perish, or a sparrow fall,
> Atoms or systems into ruin hurled,
> And now a bubble burst, and now a world.
> Hope humbly, then; with trembling pinions soar;
> Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore.
> What future bliss, He gives not thee to know,
> But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.
> Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
> Man never is, but always to be blest:
> The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
> Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
> Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutored mind
> Sees God in clouds, or hears Him in the wind;
> His soul, proud science never taught to stray
> Far as the solar walk, or milky way;
> Yet simple Nature to his hope has given,
> Behind the cloud-topped hill, an humbler heaven;
> Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
> Some happier island in the watery waste,
> Where slaves once more their native land behold,
> No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
> To be, contents his natural desire,
> He asks no angel's wing, no seraph's fire;
> But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
> His faithful dog shall bear him company.
> (...)
>
> Better for us, perhaps, it might appear,
> Were there all harmony, all virtue here;
> That never air or ocean felt the wind;
> That never passion discomposed the mind.
> But all subsists by elemental strife;
> And passions are the elements of life.
> The general order, since the whole began,
> Is kept in nature, and is kept in man.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.1
>
> Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,
> That vice or virtue there is none at all.
> If white and black blend, soften, and unite
> A thousand ways, is there no black or white?
> Ask your own heart, and nothing is so plain;
> 'Tis to mistake them, costs the time and pain.
> Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
> As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
> Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
> We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
> But where th' extreme of vice, was ne'er agreed:
> Ask where's the north? at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
> In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
> At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
> No creature owns it in the first degree,
> But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he;
> Even those who dwell beneath its very zone,
> Or never feel the rage, or never own;
> What happier nations shrink at with affright,
> The hard inhabitant contends is right.
> Virtuous and vicious every man must be,
> Few in th' extreme, but all in the degree,
> The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise;
> And even the best, by fits, what they despise.
> 'Tis but by parts we follow good or ill;
> For, vice or virtue, self directs it still;
> Each individual seeks a several goal;
> But Heaven's great view is one, and that the whole.
> That counter-works each folly and caprice;
> That disappoints th' effect of every vice;
> That, happy frailties to all ranks applied,
> Shame to the virgin, to the matron pride,
> Fear to the statesman, rashness to the chief,
> To kings presumption, and to crowds belief:
> That, virtue's ends from vanity can raise,
> Which seeks no interest, no reward but praise;
> And build on wants, and on defects of mind,
> The joy, the peace, the glory of mankind.
>
> (...)
>
> Whate'er the passion, knowledge, fame, or pelf,
> Not one will change his neighbour with himself.
> The learned is happy nature to explore,
> The fool is happy that he knows no more;
> The rich is happy in the plenty given,
> The poor contents him with the care of Heaven.
> See the blind beggar dance, the cripple sing,
> The sot a hero, lunatic a king;
> The starving chemist in his golden views
> Supremely blest, the poet in his muse.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.2
>
> To each unthinking being, heav'n a friend,
> Gives not the useless knowledge of its end:
> To man imparts it; but with such a view
> As, while he dreads it, makes him hope it too:
> The hour conceal'd, and so remote the fear,
> Death still draws nearer, never seeming near.
> Great standing miracle! that heav'n assign'd
> Its only thinking thing this turn of mind.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.3
>
> Weak, foolish man! will heav'n reward us there
> With the same trash mad mortals wish for here?
> The boy and man an individual makes,
> Yet sigh'st thou now for apples and for cakes?
> Go, like the Indian, in another life
> Expect thy dog, thy bottle, and thy wife,
> (...)
> How oft by these at sixty are undone
> The virtues of a saint at twenty-one!
> (...)
> Come then, my friend, my genius, come along;
> Oh master of the poet, and the song!
> And while the muse now stoops, or now ascends,
> To man's low passions, or their glorious ends,
> Teach me, like thee, in various nature wise,
> To fall with dignity, with temper rise;
> Form'd by thy converse, happily to steer
> From grave to gay, from lively to severe;
> Correct with spirit, eloquent with ease,
> Intent to reason, or polite to please.
> Oh! while along the stream of time thy name
> Expanded flies, and gathers all its fame;
> Say, shall my little bark attendant sail,
> Pursue the triumph, and partake the gale?
> When statesmen, heroes, kings, in dust repose,
> Whose sons shall blush their fathers were thy foes,
> Shall then this verse to future age pretend
> Thou wert my guide, philosopher, and friend?
> That, urg'd by thee, I turn'd the tuneful art
> From sounds to things, from fancy to the heart;
> For wit's false mirror held up nature's light;
> Shew'd erring pride, whatever is, is right;
> That reason, passion, answer one great aim;
> That true self-love and social are the same;
> That virtue only makes our bliss below;
> And all our knowledge is, ourselves to know.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.4
>
> An Essay on Man.
> Moral essays and satires (1733-34)
> by Alexander Pope (1688-1744).
>
> whole text in one file:
> http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/esymn10.txt
>
> http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm
>
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto Two: Shade reflects
>
> - --- jbor <jbor@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > on 29/7/03 2:29 AM, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Just following this dramatic announcement Shade abruptly (at line
181!)
> breaks the poem▓s tone and time. He ZOOMS to the present and to the
mundane
> task of trimming his nails.
> >
> > Only just catching up with the Canto Two stuff and rereading. Excellent
notes
> by the way, David; thanks.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate that.
>
> > I think that Shade's self-consciousness about composing in the present
time
> permeates the poem from the outset. The initial image in Canto One is
framed in
> the past tense, as I think you noted. As Shade looks out his bedroom
window he
> recalls this incident with the bird flying into the pane and now, in the
> present time of the poem's composition, retrospectively appropriates the
> incident to circumscribe his own life experience in its totality. It might
be
> interesting to predict what the moment of the bird's collison with the
glass
> was for Shade -- I suspect that Hazel's death is a contender, but there
are
> other possibilities too, such as his heart attack, or his first youthful
> seizure.
>
> > As the Canto proceeds it's as if he has walked out into the garden and
down
> to the lake (eg. "whilst now" line 43, "[i]t is now" line 54 etc),
following
> the familiar paths of his youth, almost as a deliberate stimulus to the
poetic
> composition. Hazel's swing is a "phantom" (57): he remembers the place
where it
> once was, but it is no longer there. Back indoors he walks from room to
room in
> the house and similarly allows the scenes and rooms to evoke the memories
and
> people of his youth, and uses these memories to prompt his current, poetic
> interpretations and reflections.
>
> Yes. Time-sense permeates the poem. He is constantly looking backwards
and
> then snapping back to the present. In Canto One he does use present
> observations of his house as a vehicle of remembrance. Sometimes the
> transitions are subtle and sometimes they are abrupt and clumsy. But in
Canto
> Two at line 181 the transition happens suddenly and without any connection
to
> the previous verses. It is almost as a hes is taking relief from his
> examinations of the past.
>
> He does it again, after examining Maud's demise, in a lament about his
> inability ⌠to translate / Into one▓s private tongue a public fate,■
thereby
> stating the overall pupose of the poem, a ppurpose similar to his life's
chosen
> purpose.
>
> And then again in the middle of his history of Hazel's suicide he jumps
back to
> his nails, and get's relief from the sound of Sybil upstairs.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding member
of
> IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in Canto
Two.
> IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is also
> ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> the insight below?
>
> - --- From the Synopsis:
> > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that word
> again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that imagining
the
> hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
>
> BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to take
on
> that task?
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
>> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, David Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding
member of
> > IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in
Canto Two.
> > IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> > acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is
also
> > ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> > the insight below?
> >
> Perhaps he does it with a degree of ironic detachment, and perhaps mostly
> because he's compelled by the sense of poignancy that transcends the
> illogic of it. Shade's dazed from grief, he needs to escape the terror of
> his loss, and, like any poet worth his salt, he realizes that reason is
> the Big lie, so the unreason of his act doesn't matter. Nabokov adored
> this kind of temporary leave-taking of one's sanity in the face of loss.
> It's useful to contextualize Shade, imho, in terms of Lear's discovery of
> the dead Cordelia, and to think of the lamentable comfort which he bestows
> upon Cordelia (V.iii)
>
> So we'll live,
> And pray, and sing, and tell old tales and laugh
> As gilded butterflies
>
> Nabokov quotes it twice in his Quixote lectures.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> > --- From the Synopsis:
> > > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> > And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> > exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> > he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that
word
> > again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> > that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> > sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that
imagining the
> > hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
> >
> > BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to
take on
> > that task?
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 01 Aug 2003 11:43:24 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 10:24, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding
member of
> > IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in
Canto Two.
> > IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> > acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is
also
> > ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> > the insight below?
>
>
>
> S doesn't exactly (in Canto Two) reach the conclusion that there is no
> life beyond the grave, does he? Rather he concludes that such a life is
> not (easily) imaginable. And Iph at least takes a novel approach to the
> subject. The question becomes not IS there a hereafter, but if there is
> one (the grand potato) how might we best deal with it.
>
> Perhaps also S just wanted to get away from Wordsmith for a term.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --- From the Synopsis:
> > > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> > And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> > exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> > he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that
word
> > again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> > that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> > sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that
imagining the
> > hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
> >
> > BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to
take on
> > that task?
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
> Date: 01 Aug 2003 11:57:55 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: NPPF--TV then and later
>
> Someone who's reading or rereading both Vineland and Pale Fire might
> want to compare the TV John and Sybil watch in the 50s (golden age) and
> what the Vineland people view thity years later.
>
> Is there much difference.
>
>
> P.
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3460
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3460
>> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:04:10 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto Two: Shade reflects
>
> on 29/7/03 2:29 AM, David Morris wrote:
>
> > Just following this dramatic announcement Shade abruptly (at line 181!)
breaks
> > the poem▓s tone and time. He ZOOMS to the present and to the mundane
task of
> > trimming his nails.
>
> Only just catching up with the Canto Two stuff and rereading. Excellent
> notes by the way, David; thanks. I think that Shade's self-consciousness
> about composing in the present time permeates the poem from the outset.
The
> initial image in Canto One is framed in the past tense, as I think you
> noted. As Shade looks out his bedroom window he recalls this incident with
> the bird flying into the pane and now, in the present time of the poem's
> composition, retrospectively appropriates the incident to circumscribe his
> own life experience in its totality. It might be interesting to predict
what
> the moment of the bird's collison with the glass was for Shade -- I
suspect
> that Hazel's death is a contender, but there are other possibilities too,
> such as his heart attack, or his first youthful seizure.
>
> As the Canto proceeds it's as if he has walked out into the garden and
down
> to the lake (eg. "whilst now" line 43, "[i]t is now" line 54 etc),
following
> the familiar paths of his youth, almost as a deliberate stimulus to the
> poetic composition. Hazel's swing is a "phantom" (57): he remembers the
> place where it once was, but it is no longer there. Back indoors he walks
> from room to room in the house and similarly allows the scenes and rooms
to
> evoke the memories and people of his youth, and uses these memories to
> prompt his current, poetic interpretations and reflections.
>
> best
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:26:52 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> To: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> > >>> the poem achieves its greatness from the ways it is misinterpreted
> > and mishandled by
> > the commentator. <<<
> >
> > Nabokov has written a poem, then made it incredibly difficult for any
> > reader of the poem to read it on its own merits. Kinbote says he has
> > the last word,
> > and the assertion above agrees. Of course, even if we read it
> > independently
> > of Kinbote's offerings, we are then left with our own offerings. Our own
> > forewords and commentaries. Does the poem achieve greatness from the
ways
> > we mishandle and misinterpret it? Is there any value in reading the poem
> > and
> > interpreting it without Kinbote's input? Someone down the street is
making
> > a terrible racket with one of those gas-powered edgers.
> >
>
> > Is there any value in reading the poem and
> > interpreting it without Kinbote's input?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Of course there's "the agnostic poet" (McCarthy, xvii) Shade's lifelong
> quest for the unknown, the "Land behind the Veil" (750) that is told about
> in the poem, his grief about Hazel's suicide. In the light of this search
> his daughter's suicide bears an even bigger tragic, because she might have
> found out the answers to his questions before him.
>
> For me his idea:
>
> I'm reasonably sure that we survive
> and that my darling somewhere is alive
> (978-98)
>
> or the possibility of a "beyond" without a god (btw. which seems
> to be the case in Pynchon's GR too) really is the
> "Gist of the matter" (Comm. line 549), but as this last
> sentence proves it's hard to avoid the "knowledge" from
> the Commentary.
>
> Hazel has committed suicide shortly after Shade had finished his
> "book on Pope" (384), which, as we might assume, is the source
> for Kinbote's Zembla. Mary McCarthy quotes the passage in her essay:
>
> But where th' extreme of vice, was ne'er agreed:
> Ask where's the north? at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
> In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
> At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
> No creature owns it in the first degree,
> But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he;
>
> See the blind beggar dance, the cripple sing,
> The sot a hero, lunatic a king;
> The starving chemist in his golden views
> Supremely blest, the poet in his muse.
>
> That the title of Shade's book is "Supremely Blest"
> we only know from the Commentary.
>
> But it is good to read a little bit more around this part in Pope's
> "An Essay on Man" which of course deals with Providence,
> the monotheistic and Christian idea of God and Man in a universe
> where everything is set up before, but "Heaven from all creatures
> hides the book of Fate" (Epistle One) -- which Shade seems to
> refuse in the poem (99-101; 167-172) and in his discussion with
> Kinbote upon that topic (Commentary to line 549). He seems to
> believe in some kind of eternity with the possibility of an afterlife,
> some ghostly existence or of reincarnation that exceeds the Christian
> belief.
>
> Otto
>
> "Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation.
> Everything science has taught me and continous to teach me,
> strengthens my belief in the continuity of our
> spiritual existence after death."
> Wernher von Braun
> (Gravity's Rainbow, p. 7)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:29:50 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Alexander Pope
>
> "The science of human nature is, like all other sciences, reduced to a few
> clear points: there are not many certain truths in this
> world. (...) If I could flatter myself that this Essay has any merit, it
is
> in steering betwixt the extremes of doctrines seemingly opposite (...)."
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.design
>
> I. Say first, of God above, or man below
> What can we reason, but from what we know?
> Of man, what see we but his station here,
> From which to reason, or to which refer?
> Through worlds unnumbered though the God be known,
> 'Tis ours to trace Him only in our own.
> He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
> See worlds on worlds compose one universe,
> Observe how system into system runs,
> What other planets circle other suns,
> What varied being peoples every star,
> May tell why Heaven has made us as we are.
> But of this frame, the bearings, and the ties,
> The strong connections, nice dependencies,
> Gradations just, has thy pervading soul
> Looked through? or can a part contain the whole?
> Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
> And drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?
>
> (...)
>
> III. Heaven from all creatures hides the book of Fate,
> All but the page prescribed, their present state:
> From brutes what men, from men what spirits know:
> Or who could suffer being here below?
> The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed to-day,
> Had he thy reason, would he skip and play?
> Pleased to the last, he crops the flowery food,
> And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood.
> Oh, blindness to the future! kindly given,
> That each may fill the circle, marked by Heaven:
> Who sees with equal eye, as God of all,
> A hero perish, or a sparrow fall,
> Atoms or systems into ruin hurled,
> And now a bubble burst, and now a world.
> Hope humbly, then; with trembling pinions soar;
> Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore.
> What future bliss, He gives not thee to know,
> But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.
> Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
> Man never is, but always to be blest:
> The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
> Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
> Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutored mind
> Sees God in clouds, or hears Him in the wind;
> His soul, proud science never taught to stray
> Far as the solar walk, or milky way;
> Yet simple Nature to his hope has given,
> Behind the cloud-topped hill, an humbler heaven;
> Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
> Some happier island in the watery waste,
> Where slaves once more their native land behold,
> No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
> To be, contents his natural desire,
> He asks no angel's wing, no seraph's fire;
> But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
> His faithful dog shall bear him company.
> (...)
>
> Better for us, perhaps, it might appear,
> Were there all harmony, all virtue here;
> That never air or ocean felt the wind;
> That never passion discomposed the mind.
> But all subsists by elemental strife;
> And passions are the elements of life.
> The general order, since the whole began,
> Is kept in nature, and is kept in man.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.1
>
> Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,
> That vice or virtue there is none at all.
> If white and black blend, soften, and unite
> A thousand ways, is there no black or white?
> Ask your own heart, and nothing is so plain;
> 'Tis to mistake them, costs the time and pain.
> Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
> As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
> Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
> We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
> But where th' extreme of vice, was ne'er agreed:
> Ask where's the north? at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
> In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
> At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
> No creature owns it in the first degree,
> But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he;
> Even those who dwell beneath its very zone,
> Or never feel the rage, or never own;
> What happier nations shrink at with affright,
> The hard inhabitant contends is right.
> Virtuous and vicious every man must be,
> Few in th' extreme, but all in the degree,
> The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise;
> And even the best, by fits, what they despise.
> 'Tis but by parts we follow good or ill;
> For, vice or virtue, self directs it still;
> Each individual seeks a several goal;
> But Heaven's great view is one, and that the whole.
> That counter-works each folly and caprice;
> That disappoints th' effect of every vice;
> That, happy frailties to all ranks applied,
> Shame to the virgin, to the matron pride,
> Fear to the statesman, rashness to the chief,
> To kings presumption, and to crowds belief:
> That, virtue's ends from vanity can raise,
> Which seeks no interest, no reward but praise;
> And build on wants, and on defects of mind,
> The joy, the peace, the glory of mankind.
>
> (...)
>
> Whate'er the passion, knowledge, fame, or pelf,
> Not one will change his neighbour with himself.
> The learned is happy nature to explore,
> The fool is happy that he knows no more;
> The rich is happy in the plenty given,
> The poor contents him with the care of Heaven.
> See the blind beggar dance, the cripple sing,
> The sot a hero, lunatic a king;
> The starving chemist in his golden views
> Supremely blest, the poet in his muse.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.2
>
> To each unthinking being, heav'n a friend,
> Gives not the useless knowledge of its end:
> To man imparts it; but with such a view
> As, while he dreads it, makes him hope it too:
> The hour conceal'd, and so remote the fear,
> Death still draws nearer, never seeming near.
> Great standing miracle! that heav'n assign'd
> Its only thinking thing this turn of mind.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.3
>
> Weak, foolish man! will heav'n reward us there
> With the same trash mad mortals wish for here?
> The boy and man an individual makes,
> Yet sigh'st thou now for apples and for cakes?
> Go, like the Indian, in another life
> Expect thy dog, thy bottle, and thy wife,
> (...)
> How oft by these at sixty are undone
> The virtues of a saint at twenty-one!
> (...)
> Come then, my friend, my genius, come along;
> Oh master of the poet, and the song!
> And while the muse now stoops, or now ascends,
> To man's low passions, or their glorious ends,
> Teach me, like thee, in various nature wise,
> To fall with dignity, with temper rise;
> Form'd by thy converse, happily to steer
> From grave to gay, from lively to severe;
> Correct with spirit, eloquent with ease,
> Intent to reason, or polite to please.
> Oh! while along the stream of time thy name
> Expanded flies, and gathers all its fame;
> Say, shall my little bark attendant sail,
> Pursue the triumph, and partake the gale?
> When statesmen, heroes, kings, in dust repose,
> Whose sons shall blush their fathers were thy foes,
> Shall then this verse to future age pretend
> Thou wert my guide, philosopher, and friend?
> That, urg'd by thee, I turn'd the tuneful art
> From sounds to things, from fancy to the heart;
> For wit's false mirror held up nature's light;
> Shew'd erring pride, whatever is, is right;
> That reason, passion, answer one great aim;
> That true self-love and social are the same;
> That virtue only makes our bliss below;
> And all our knowledge is, ourselves to know.
> gopher://gopher.english.upenn.edu/00/E-Text/PEAL/Pope/Man/man.4
>
> An Essay on Man.
> Moral essays and satires (1733-34)
> by Alexander Pope (1688-1744).
>
> whole text in one file:
> http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/esymn10.txt
>
> http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm
>
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto Two: Shade reflects
>
> - --- jbor <jbor@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > on 29/7/03 2:29 AM, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Just following this dramatic announcement Shade abruptly (at line
181!)
> breaks the poem▓s tone and time. He ZOOMS to the present and to the
mundane
> task of trimming his nails.
> >
> > Only just catching up with the Canto Two stuff and rereading. Excellent
notes
> by the way, David; thanks.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate that.
>
> > I think that Shade's self-consciousness about composing in the present
time
> permeates the poem from the outset. The initial image in Canto One is
framed in
> the past tense, as I think you noted. As Shade looks out his bedroom
window he
> recalls this incident with the bird flying into the pane and now, in the
> present time of the poem's composition, retrospectively appropriates the
> incident to circumscribe his own life experience in its totality. It might
be
> interesting to predict what the moment of the bird's collison with the
glass
> was for Shade -- I suspect that Hazel's death is a contender, but there
are
> other possibilities too, such as his heart attack, or his first youthful
> seizure.
>
> > As the Canto proceeds it's as if he has walked out into the garden and
down
> to the lake (eg. "whilst now" line 43, "[i]t is now" line 54 etc),
following
> the familiar paths of his youth, almost as a deliberate stimulus to the
poetic
> composition. Hazel's swing is a "phantom" (57): he remembers the place
where it
> once was, but it is no longer there. Back indoors he walks from room to
room in
> the house and similarly allows the scenes and rooms to evoke the memories
and
> people of his youth, and uses these memories to prompt his current, poetic
> interpretations and reflections.
>
> Yes. Time-sense permeates the poem. He is constantly looking backwards
and
> then snapping back to the present. In Canto One he does use present
> observations of his house as a vehicle of remembrance. Sometimes the
> transitions are subtle and sometimes they are abrupt and clumsy. But in
Canto
> Two at line 181 the transition happens suddenly and without any connection
to
> the previous verses. It is almost as a hes is taking relief from his
> examinations of the past.
>
> He does it again, after examining Maud's demise, in a lament about his
> inability ⌠to translate / Into one▓s private tongue a public fate,■
thereby
> stating the overall pupose of the poem, a ppurpose similar to his life's
chosen
> purpose.
>
> And then again in the middle of his history of Hazel's suicide he jumps
back to
> his nails, and get's relief from the sound of Sybil upstairs.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding member
of
> IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in Canto
Two.
> IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is also
> ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> the insight below?
>
> - --- From the Synopsis:
> > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that word
> again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that imagining
the
> hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
>
> BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to take
on
> that task?
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
>> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, David Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding
member of
> > IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in
Canto Two.
> > IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> > acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is
also
> > ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> > the insight below?
> >
> Perhaps he does it with a degree of ironic detachment, and perhaps mostly
> because he's compelled by the sense of poignancy that transcends the
> illogic of it. Shade's dazed from grief, he needs to escape the terror of
> his loss, and, like any poet worth his salt, he realizes that reason is
> the Big lie, so the unreason of his act doesn't matter. Nabokov adored
> this kind of temporary leave-taking of one's sanity in the face of loss.
> It's useful to contextualize Shade, imho, in terms of Lear's discovery of
> the dead Cordelia, and to think of the lamentable comfort which he bestows
> upon Cordelia (V.iii)
>
> So we'll live,
> And pray, and sing, and tell old tales and laugh
> As gilded butterflies
>
> Nabokov quotes it twice in his Quixote lectures.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> > --- From the Synopsis:
> > > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> > And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> > exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> > he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that
word
> > again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> > that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> > sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that
imagining the
> > hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
> >
> > BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to
take on
> > that task?
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 01 Aug 2003 11:43:24 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Canto Two Synopsis
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 10:24, David Morris wrote:
> >
> > There is something strange about Shade's decision to be a founding
member of
> > IPH (Canto Three) after he's reach this crucial conclusion below in
Canto Two.
> > IPH is all about the silly speculations about the hereafter which he
> > acknowledges are so venerable to ridicule. His description of IPH is
also
> > ridiculing. So why did he take on this task of organizing IPH after
reaching
> > the insight below?
>
>
>
> S doesn't exactly (in Canto Two) reach the conclusion that there is no
> life beyond the grave, does he? Rather he concludes that such a life is
> not (easily) imaginable. And Iph at least takes a novel approach to the
> subject. The question becomes not IS there a hereafter, but if there is
> one (the grand potato) how might we best deal with it.
>
> Perhaps also S just wanted to get away from Wordsmith for a term.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --- From the Synopsis:
> > > He then reasons about death and resurrection to reach logical
absurdities.
> > And he reaches a wonderful conclusion via a big ⌠if■: The hereafter, if
it
> > exists, is most likely beyond our imaginations ability to perceive.
Therefore
> > he decides not to join in the ⌠vulgar laughter■ (note the use of that
word
> > again) and lists a few hereafters that those vulgarians laugh at, and
concludes
> > that these possibilities seem silly only because ⌠we do not make it seem
> > sufficiently unlikely,■ a thought related to his conclusion that
imagining the
> > hereafter is likely beyond our ability.
> >
> > BTW, Canto Three is presently without a host. Would someone care to
take on
> > that task?
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
> Date: 01 Aug 2003 11:57:55 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: NPPF--TV then and later
>
> Someone who's reading or rereading both Vineland and Pale Fire might
> want to compare the TV John and Sybil watch in the 50s (golden age) and
> what the Vineland people view thity years later.
>
> Is there much difference.
>
>
> P.
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3460
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.