I don't relish the prospect of wading back in,
but since you asked. . . The entire novel presupposes that Shade and Kinbote
are different people. Every character within the novel acts as if this is the
case. If you are prepared to dismiss every incident in New Wye as Kinbote's
fantasy, then you leave yourself with no purchase on reality and, let's face it,
no objective evidence of a Kinbote, however fragmented, on which to pin your
theory. I could claim that Pale Fire and Pnin were both invented
out of thin air by Cincinnatus C in his final or first moments (I don't find
anything in the novels to preclude this interpretation -- well, I wouldn't,
would I? VN could hardly be expected to anticipate and pre-empt all future
crackpots!), but I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously unless I could
first carefully refute the apparent narratives of those novels and second, find
incontrovertible evidence that supports my outré theory. In order to
create space for an interpretation as radical as the one you propose, you are
obliged to present clear evidence that Shade and Kinbote could not possibly be
separate entities. The unsurprising fact that K was not invited to S's funeral
(if in fact Sybil even marked that occasion publicly) hardly suffices.
Similarly, the fact that all of the encounters between Kinbote and Shade are
reported by Kinbote is completely logical in even the most conservative reading
of the novel. Practically all the encounters of all of the characters are
reported by Kinbote. He is, after all, the author of the non-poem text. I don't
see it as being suspicious that Shade does not deign to mention his pesky
neighbour in so private a poem. And I don't concede that Brian's
interpretation of PF relies on "The Vane Sisters." That story, and moreover VN's
explication of it, merely establish that the solution he proposes is not
unprecedented. The evidence presented in Nabokov's Pale Fire is the
result of extremely close reading, not Frankensteinian (or Hydean) transplants.
The only real Nabokovian precedent for your split personality theory is
The Eye, and VN's strategy in that novel (the real story is recoverable
even before he reveals it at the end) is light years away from the murky
inferences you have so far proposed, and furthermore he does not "cheat" by
completely recasting Smurov's world to flatter his mania. On discovering
Smurov's problem, the events we have followed become retrospectively clear, not
retrospectively imaginary. Furthermore, VN was constructing narratives along
similar lines well before "The Vane Sisters," and the ghosts in Glory and
Bend Sinister need no retrospective validation in order to materialise,
only diligent close reading. As for the relationship between Kinbote and
Shade, what's wrong with: Shade as the venerable poet, too polite and kindly
to shun the unpleasantly obsessive neighbour that no-one else can stand; Kinbote
as the latter? Again, you need to refute the obvious interpretation before
any wild alternative can get much traction. Even the slowest reader is unlikely
to miss the point that Kinbote's depiction of their relationship is rose-tinted,
but I see no reason to doubt they were acquainted. Do
you?
AL
---------- From: "D. Barton Johnson"
<chtodel@cox.net> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU Subject: Fw: Pale
Fire questions for Mr Langridge Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 6:43
AM
I ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Kunin
<mailto:chaiselongue@earthlink.net> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
<mailto:NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu> Sent: Friday, September 20,
2002 8:34 AM Subject: questions for Mr Langridge Dear Mr
Langridge, I wonder if you would indulge me: what is the evidence to the
contrary regarding my theory that Shade and Kinbote are not separate
entities? I am only able to come up with are the following: 1) the
obituaries written for Shade as reported by Kinbote; 2) Kinbote and Shade are
present at the same time in many scenes reported by Kinbote. The tributes
Kinbote quotes as "obituaries" may actually be newspaper articles regarding the
bizarre occurance of a local poet and professor having suffered a stroke and/or
having gone insane and the subsequent disappearance of the manuscript that he
was working on. Even Kinbote doesn't report a funeral, isn't that
odd? The only scenes in which Kinbote and Shade are both present as actual
persons are reported by Kinbote in his commentary, at least one of which is
openly addressed to a doctor. Ditto references to Zembla as a real place. The
reference in Shade's poem is literary. It is not unusual in multiple
personality disorder for the suppressed personality to be aware of (or to "spy
on") the dominant personality. The dominant personality is usually totally
unaware of the presence of the other (hence periods of blackout). I don't find
anything in the novel that precludes this interpretation. Why can't Kinbote
describe Shade's house? Why are there no pictures of Samuel and Caroline Shade?
Why was there no funeral? Who was that baby related to Aunt Maud? These
questions require answers. My main problem with Mr Boyd's solution is that
without the evidence of "The Vane Sisters" he would have no argument. Would it
have been fair of Nabokov to write a novel for an audience that only consisted
of those who had read that story in The Hudson Review and Encounter some years
previously? A story that was not available at the time in any other edition?
That therefore had to have been read, understood and retained in the memory? I
do not find that fair at all! There are references in Pale Fire to Sybil
Vane, but they lead the reader to "The Picture of Dorian Gray" not to an obscure
1952 story. My secondary problem with Mr Boyd's solution is that it fails to
answer a rather basic question: what is the relationship of Kinbote and Shade?
Surely they are not neighbors and intimate friends as Kinbote would have us
believe. Mr Boyd's solution seems to accept this. Carolyn Kunin