Subject
Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria N. Alexander
To: chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu
Cc: alexander@dactyl.org
Dear All:
Coincidentally last fall, a few days after Brian Boyd wrote me saying he though I had little understanding of "Nabokov's art" or "of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science," the editor of the _Antioch Review_ sent me the paperback edition of Boyd's book on _Pale Fire_ to review. I took it as a sign from the ghost of Nabokov that I should review it. It has just come out. Now that I've had time to cool down a bit, I think my tone sounds rather cheeky. Nevertheless, I stand by my point. Here it is:
> _Antioch Review_ (Summer 2002 Vol. 60, No. 3): 530-531.
>
> Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic Art of Discovery by Brian Boyd. Princeton
> University Press, 303pp., $16.95 paper
>
> Nabokov's _Pale Fire_ is a fictitious edition of a poem by John Shade
> with commentary by an egocentric critic, Charles Kinbote. Boyd offers
> detailed analyses of patterns in the poem, performing the work that
> should have been done by Kinbote. He also provides excellent commentary
> on Kinbote's work. Boyd then looks at the patterns occurring _between_
> Shade's and Kinbote's contributions, which have led several critics to
> argue that the whole of _Pale Fire_ was written by one deceptive
> meta-author. Boyd once argued it was Shade. Now he claims it was
> Kinbote possessed by the ghosts of Shade and Shade's daughter. Boyd
> overstates his case somewhat by not making clear distinctions between
> patterns that could be attributed to one of the living authors and
> patterns that _require_ a meta-author: e.g., the fact that Kinbote's
> commentary echoes themes in Shade's poem is not an uncanny coincidence;
> the fact that Shade's poem seems to prophesy his own murder is.
>
> Boyd dedicates considerable space to Popper's _Logic of Scientific
> Discovery_, claiming his "theory" about _Pale Fire_ is falsifiable.
> However, poetic interpretations, like any postulation about supernatural
> beings, are precisely the kinds of assertions that _cannot_ be
> falsified. As Pale Fire itself demonstrates, art and belief are the
> effects of ambiguity and coincidence.
>
> All the same, Boyd is right: there do _seem_ to be ghosts afoot. But
> Boyd has swallowed Kinbote's bait. Kinbote wants readers to think his
> commentary is supernaturally inspired. Boyd discounts Nabokov's warning
> that Shade has learned not to believe in "domestic ghosts." Shade's
> subtler discovery is that certain kinds of poetic patterns tend to
> suggest a meta-author, and similar patterns in real life tend to suggest
> supernatural meta-authors. Nevertheless, Boyd's discovery of Kinbote's
> planted clues advances Nabokovian scholarship considerably. My criticism
> should ultimately only strengthen the better part of his thesis.
>
> --Victoria N. Alexander
>
>
>