Subject
Nabokov contra Bunuel, etc.... (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: rodney welch <rwelch@scjob.sces.org>
> > My latest reading of Nabokov's true magnum opus raises the
> > question: How do YOU read Pale Fire?
> >
> > Three main ways come to mind.
> >
> > One is to simply read the book straight through: read the
> > poem and then the commentary. This is, of course, the usual way.
> > The second is to interrupt one's reading of the poem, every
> > few lines, with Kinbote's analysis. (This is Kinbote's suggested
> > method, so you can't take it very seriously.)
> > The third is the most tricky, the most tempting and,
> > according to some, the most illuminating: this is the "cross-
> > reference" style, in which the reader, having consumed the poem,
> > follows each of Kinbote's fore-and-aft references to other notes
> > as soon as they occur -- see note 10, which leads to note 40, to
> > note 303 and back to note 75, and so on.
> > I tried this one time, found it perfectly maddening. All I remember was that I wound up with every
> > available finger marking this or that place. Brian Boyd says it
> > shows just how extremely well-plotted the book is; my stance is
> > to take BB's word for it and just read the thing straight
> > through.
> > (Guilty secret: I have on occasion read or (gulp!) scanned
> > the cross-referenced notes, but only if they are short. This will
> > likely go a long toward explaining why I have never yet gotten
> > through Wallace's INFINITE JEST, Cortazar's HOPSCOTCH, C.R.
> > Leslie's LIFE OF JOHN CONSTABLE, or the Darkbloom-Boyd masterpiece
> > ADA. I hate footnotes.)
> > If anyone has cross-referenced the book from beginning to
> > end I'd like to hear about the experience -- and tell me, how did
> > you find the time? I mean this seriously: reading a book straight
> > through permits for the occasional interruption, but pursuing an
> > unending Kinbotian knot from reference to reference seems a
> > little like assembling a house of cards -- a Taj Mahal of cards -
> > - in one's head. If a ringing phone doesn't dissolve the thought
> > process, prying your hand from the pages they are marking
> > certainly would.
> > Another point that other Pale Fire lovers may want to
> > address:
> >
> > *Is Shade's poem any good?
> >
> > Reading a book by Nabokov is often like watching a film by
> > Bunuel; sometimes you are not sure when to laugh. There is
> > sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- a creeping sense that
> > the serious parts are actually funny, that the funny parts are
> > deeply tragic, and that the joke's on you no matter how you slice
> > it. (What I vaguely remember one critic saying of Bunuel
> > certainly goes for Nabokov: "Whenever we watch a Bunuel film, our
> > expectation that he is going to dupe us is so great that it
> > allows him to dupe us every time.")
> > So -- is Shade's poem an ironic but deeply felt account of
> > family love and family tragedy, or is it mere sentimental trash?
> > I've occasionally run across comments -- although, frankly,
> > I can't remember where -- alleging the latter, suggesting, of
> > course, that only those with that rare Nabokovian gift for
> > detecting poshlost will see that VN wasn't making poetry, but
> > spoofing it.
> > Considering that the poem is, to my mind, the finest poem VN
> > ever wrote -- and not all that far from the style of
> > "The Ballad of Longwood Glen" or "An Evening of Russian Poetry" -
> > - I must consider this theory graduate-level bullshit.
> >
> > P.S. Is there any available critical material comparing
> > Nabokov and Bunuel -- outside of the fact that they both adored
> > insects? Does anyone know what one thought of the other?
> > I think anyone who howled all the way through Beat the Devil
> > would definitely get a kick out of The Discreet Charm of the
> > Bourgeoisie.
> >RW
> > My latest reading of Nabokov's true magnum opus raises the
> > question: How do YOU read Pale Fire?
> >
> > Three main ways come to mind.
> >
> > One is to simply read the book straight through: read the
> > poem and then the commentary. This is, of course, the usual way.
> > The second is to interrupt one's reading of the poem, every
> > few lines, with Kinbote's analysis. (This is Kinbote's suggested
> > method, so you can't take it very seriously.)
> > The third is the most tricky, the most tempting and,
> > according to some, the most illuminating: this is the "cross-
> > reference" style, in which the reader, having consumed the poem,
> > follows each of Kinbote's fore-and-aft references to other notes
> > as soon as they occur -- see note 10, which leads to note 40, to
> > note 303 and back to note 75, and so on.
> > I tried this one time, found it perfectly maddening. All I remember was that I wound up with every
> > available finger marking this or that place. Brian Boyd says it
> > shows just how extremely well-plotted the book is; my stance is
> > to take BB's word for it and just read the thing straight
> > through.
> > (Guilty secret: I have on occasion read or (gulp!) scanned
> > the cross-referenced notes, but only if they are short. This will
> > likely go a long toward explaining why I have never yet gotten
> > through Wallace's INFINITE JEST, Cortazar's HOPSCOTCH, C.R.
> > Leslie's LIFE OF JOHN CONSTABLE, or the Darkbloom-Boyd masterpiece
> > ADA. I hate footnotes.)
> > If anyone has cross-referenced the book from beginning to
> > end I'd like to hear about the experience -- and tell me, how did
> > you find the time? I mean this seriously: reading a book straight
> > through permits for the occasional interruption, but pursuing an
> > unending Kinbotian knot from reference to reference seems a
> > little like assembling a house of cards -- a Taj Mahal of cards -
> > - in one's head. If a ringing phone doesn't dissolve the thought
> > process, prying your hand from the pages they are marking
> > certainly would.
> > Another point that other Pale Fire lovers may want to
> > address:
> >
> > *Is Shade's poem any good?
> >
> > Reading a book by Nabokov is often like watching a film by
> > Bunuel; sometimes you are not sure when to laugh. There is
> > sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- a creeping sense that
> > the serious parts are actually funny, that the funny parts are
> > deeply tragic, and that the joke's on you no matter how you slice
> > it. (What I vaguely remember one critic saying of Bunuel
> > certainly goes for Nabokov: "Whenever we watch a Bunuel film, our
> > expectation that he is going to dupe us is so great that it
> > allows him to dupe us every time.")
> > So -- is Shade's poem an ironic but deeply felt account of
> > family love and family tragedy, or is it mere sentimental trash?
> > I've occasionally run across comments -- although, frankly,
> > I can't remember where -- alleging the latter, suggesting, of
> > course, that only those with that rare Nabokovian gift for
> > detecting poshlost will see that VN wasn't making poetry, but
> > spoofing it.
> > Considering that the poem is, to my mind, the finest poem VN
> > ever wrote -- and not all that far from the style of
> > "The Ballad of Longwood Glen" or "An Evening of Russian Poetry" -
> > - I must consider this theory graduate-level bullshit.
> >
> > P.S. Is there any available critical material comparing
> > Nabokov and Bunuel -- outside of the fact that they both adored
> > insects? Does anyone know what one thought of the other?
> > I think anyone who howled all the way through Beat the Devil
> > would definitely get a kick out of The Discreet Charm of the
> > Bourgeoisie.
> >RW