(in case you've missed them, earlier exchanges appear at the end
of this note)
Dear
All:
Happily for me, Professor
Boyd has taken my bait this time. I wanted to address his earlier criticisms of
my research on mimicry because, although I know he would never repeat them
publicly, he may have inadvertently let a comment or two (or disapproving grunt)
slip in private, and considering the great respect with which he is generally
held among Nabokovians (myself included) I feared this might create unnecessary
obstacles to an appreciation of my modest contributions. I only wish he had
quoted more of his letter to me, and I hope he will do so in the future
About my words (in
the research paper done at SFI), “natural selection as a theory, the strength of
which lies in its tautological nature,” BB had this to say,
>???: I wonder how much you
understand of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of
philosophy, or of the philosophy of science, if you can say this. If a theory is
tautological, then it cannot be refuted, and it is therefore unscientific (it
fails to meet the criteria of potential falsifiability) and can have no
explanatory power whatever. But the supposedly tautological nature of natural
selection has always been used in criticism of the theory, and the clear
demonstration that it is far from tautological has been made again and again, by
Dawkins for instance, but by many more before him, back to Darwin.
My response: Preferential fitness, according to Darwin,
is defined by reproductive fitness. Whatever survives to reproduce is more fit;
what defines fitness is survival and subsequent reproduction. Fitness might be
stupidity, or slowness, or aggressiveness, or patience. No characteristic is
inherently fit. “Survival of the ones who survive” is a tautology, as
Darwin himself was well aware. This does not, however, make it wrong or
meaningless. Contrary to what Professor Boyd seems to think, I most certainly
believe that natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
Regarding whether or not Darwin's assertions could be tested, this was an
issue for many years. Darwinists could not use the usual experimental
methods. The laboratory was nature, which worked too slowly for a human
scientist to observe changes. An advantageous variation does not occur more
frequently because it has a higher probability of being selected. Advantageous
variations occur by chance. However, Darwinism was actually proved, finally,
late in the 20th century. Now new techniques for the study of bacterial
evolution allow for sufficiently short replication times. Consequently,
evolution can be observed in detail over thousands of generations. See R. E.
Lenski, "Evolution in Experimental Populations of Bacteria" in Population
Genetics of Bacteria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 193-215.
Even so, what Darwin described (natural selection) was a mechanism, not
a “theory” in the technical sense. Everybody uses the term “theory” with Darwin
in a loose sort of way. However, we still are not able to analyze the process of
natural selection in a way that would allow us to quantify and categorize the
transition from one level of structural complexity to another. There is no
general law of adaptation. Darwin had to invent a different story for each
particular case. This is not to say that a theory cannot be found. In fact, I am
convinced that my advisor Jim Crutchfield will be able to provide a testable
theory of adaptation, using the techniques of computational mechanics, in the
very near future.
Richard Dawkins, whom Professor Boyd recommends,
writes “popular” books on evolutionary theory. Most biologists these days think
he overstates his case at best. Many think he is flatly wrong.
And,
now, regarding the new criticisms that Professor Boyd has made of my review
of his work on Pale Fire. I wrote,
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."
BB: Where is the evidence that Kinbote
wants readers to think that his commentary is supernaturally inspired?
VNA: That is a great question and the subject of my
next book. But I will be careful how I use the term "evidence." The short answer
is, Who wouldn’t want one’s work to be perceived as inspired? Although the
application Popper’s notion of “falsifiability” may be inappropriate in the
literary domain, that other great rule of science, Occam’s razor, seems very
useful here. If a simple explanation and/or assumption will suffice, don’t offer
additional, more complicated ones.
In his response to my review,
Professor Boyd further writes,
Ms
Alexander’s … sentence again betrays the text. What Shade actually writes
is quite different: So why join in the vulgar laughter? Why Scorn a
hereafter none can verify: . . . . It isn’t that we dream too wild a
dream: The trouble is we do not make it seem Sufficiently unlikely; for
the most We can think up is a domestic ghost.
Then Boyd goes
on in his response to further prove his argument by explaining the meaning or
function of a particular rhyme. My response, to BB's response: Boyd's ghosts are just too
ordinary: he proves them by pointing to funny patterns that Kinbote could have
cooked up himself, if he wanted to. I think Nabokov would argue that the
supernatural, if it exists, would be unlike anything any person could imagine,
certainly nothing anyone could "prove" with "evidence." The only "evidence" we
will ever have for the supernatural--or for interpretations of the "meanings"
of rhymes--are patterns, funny patterns, which might seem intentional, but
which might be accidental (or at least not correlated in the way BB imagines).
Let me know if you've heard enough,
fellow subscribers. For my part, I'm enjoying this quite a lot. And thanks
everyone for your emails. I’m so grateful for your sympathy (and humor). Of
course, I am flattered by Professor Boyd’s attention, who is, we all
agree, Nabokov’s greatest biographer.
Cordially,
Tori
Alexander
----- Original Message ----- From: D. Barton Johnson To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU Sent:
Sunday, August 25, 2002 10:47 PM Subject: Fw: Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE:
Boyd response
----- Original Message ----- From:
Brian Boyd (FOA ENG) To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' Sent: Sunday, August 25,
2002 4:36 PM Subject: RE: Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE: Boyd response
Dear All: Since
Victoria Alexander quotes without permission from what I wrote, may I set those
phrases in context?
She
writes that “Brian Boyd wrote me saying he though[t] 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.’ ”
I
had read her essay on “Neutral Evolution” and thought it flawed in many ways,
but saw no point in saying so anywhere. Since she wrote me asking for a
reaction, however, I gave her a detailed commentary:
-----------------------------------
>Dear
Victoria,
>Thank
you for the offprint of your Neutral Evolution, which I had already received
from somewhere (Kurt?). It’s a delight to see someone else in literature taking
the science seriously.
>However,
since you ask, I have to say that although I find the attempt valuable I find
the execution deeply flawed. You do not seem to understand the science or
Nabokov’s art sufficiently clearly and will have to work at clarifying your
thoughts and expression.
>Here
are some specific comments:
[some
pages later]:
>>natural
selection as a theory, the strength of which lies in its tautological nature:
>???:
I wonder how much you understand of evolutionary theory, or the history of the
theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science, if you can say this.
If a theory is tautological, then it cannot be refuted, and it is therefore
unscientific (it fails to meet the criteria of potential falsifiability) and can
have no explanatory power whatever. But the supposedly tautological nature of
natural selection has always been used in criticism of the theory, and the clear
demonstration that it is far from tautological has been made again and again, by
Dawkins for instance, but by many more before him, back to Darwin.
[I
end a little later]:
>Sorry,
but I had to say it as I see it.
>Best
wishes for your future work,
>Brian
Boyd
In
her review, which is perfectly fair and even generous in the circumstances,
Victoria Alexander comments:
>
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.”
Where
is the evidence that Kinbote wants readers to think that his commentary is
supernaturally inspired? I and other readers I know see only evidence that he
wants readers to think Shade’s poem would have been much better had it been
inspired by Kinbote.
Ms
Alexander’s next sentence againbetrays the text. What Shade actually writes
is quite different:
So
why join in the vulgar laughter? Why Scorn
a hereafter none can verify: . . . . It
isn’t that we dream too wild a
dream: The
trouble is we do not make it seem Sufficiently
unlikely; for the most We
can think up is a domestic
ghost.
Suddenly,
this makes me notice something I should have seen earlier. Nabokov does not
repeat a couplet’s rhymes casually. Within sixty lines, Shade introduces Hazel,
to lead up to the account of her suicide. He begins, though, by addressing his
wife, Hazel’s mother, and then introduces Hazel herself this way:
And
I love you most When
with a pensive nod you greet her ghost. . . . This
verse paragraph is saturated with anticipations of the final verse paragraph of
the poem, which introduces the particular “Vanessa with a crimson band” that
seems to be a sign of Hazel’s transformation and presence.
To
return to Ms Alexander’s sentence: an experienced reader of Nabokov would see
that “Nabokov’s warning that Shade has learned not to believe in ‘domestic
ghosts’” would be just the kind of disclaimer that in Nabokov alerts us that
there is indeed something of that very kind to look out for. But in the
Catno that depicts Hazel's suicideShade in fact says he expects something
more in the hereafter; and the repetition of “most”/”ghost” as Hazel is
introduced into the poem hints just where we should look. Not Hazel appearing as
a stage spook, not Hazel as text; but Hazel in the texture of the poem.
Brian
Boyd
-----Original
Message----- From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net] Sent:
Sunday, August 25, 2002 4:37 AM To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU Subject:
Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE
----- 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 >