Subject
Fw: : Ultima Thule and Pale Fire & Duchamp
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Kunin" <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: : Ultima Thule and Pale Fire & Duchamp
.
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (80
lines) ------------------
> Another interesting note on Duchamp - he gave up graphic arts to devote
> himself exclusively to chess in his last years.
>
> C
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "jansy mello" <jansy@zaz.com.br>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (59
> > lines) ------------------
> >> One could also be reminded of French artist Duchamp´s words: " It is
> > always
> >> the other who dies". ( I don´t have the correct words in French by me
now)
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Mensagem Original-----
> >> De: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> >> Para: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >> Enviada em: Domingo, 26 de Janeiro de 2003 06:03
> >> Assunto: Fw: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
> >>
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
> >>> lines) ------------------
> >>>> Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> >>>> finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by
> > the
> >>>> following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other
> > men
> >>>> die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds
much
> >>> like
> >>>> Falter when he says to Sineusov:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is
> >> mortal;
> >>>> you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not
mortal.
> >>> Why?
> >>>> Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be
> > any
> >>>> man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a differen
t
> >> way
> >>>> than you."
> >>>>
> >>>> Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the
> >> Posterior
> >>>> Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second
> > example
> >>>> isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the
piffle
> >> and
> >>>> prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up
> >> Boyd's
> >>>> idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the
> > child
> >>>> Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from
> >> Pale
> >>>> Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a
> > further
> >>>> indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is
indeed
> >>>> alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are
mentioned
> >> (as
> >>>> they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
> >>> passage
> >>>> a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person
> >> presently
> >>>> living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already
> > died.
> >>>> It's an interesting paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apologies if this has been covered
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
From: "Carolyn Kunin" <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: : Ultima Thule and Pale Fire & Duchamp
.
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (80
lines) ------------------
> Another interesting note on Duchamp - he gave up graphic arts to devote
> himself exclusively to chess in his last years.
>
> C
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "jansy mello" <jansy@zaz.com.br>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (59
> > lines) ------------------
> >> One could also be reminded of French artist Duchamp´s words: " It is
> > always
> >> the other who dies". ( I don´t have the correct words in French by me
now)
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Mensagem Original-----
> >> De: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> >> Para: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >> Enviada em: Domingo, 26 de Janeiro de 2003 06:03
> >> Assunto: Fw: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
> >>
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
> >>> lines) ------------------
> >>>> Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> >>>> finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by
> > the
> >>>> following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other
> > men
> >>>> die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds
much
> >>> like
> >>>> Falter when he says to Sineusov:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is
> >> mortal;
> >>>> you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not
mortal.
> >>> Why?
> >>>> Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be
> > any
> >>>> man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a differen
t
> >> way
> >>>> than you."
> >>>>
> >>>> Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the
> >> Posterior
> >>>> Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second
> > example
> >>>> isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the
piffle
> >> and
> >>>> prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up
> >> Boyd's
> >>>> idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the
> > child
> >>>> Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from
> >> Pale
> >>>> Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a
> > further
> >>>> indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is
indeed
> >>>> alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are
mentioned
> >> (as
> >>>> they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
> >>> passage
> >>>> a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person
> >> presently
> >>>> living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already
> > died.
> >>>> It's an interesting paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apologies if this has been covered
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>