I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you
saying that Nabokov wrote a novel which poses many questions, but it's incorrect
to try to answer them? You do not see the novel, as I and others do, as a puzzle
requiring solution, that much seems clear.
I could understand if you
thought the novel was a paradox (which it may turn out to be), but that doesn't
seem to be it. Are you saying that the novel is intentionally insoluble
or incomprehensible?
Or are you saying that the author doesn't care how
we read his novel; that the author's intentions are irrelevant; that the author
creates a puzzle without a solution?
These, if any of them is what you
claim, don't sound very Nabokov to me. In sum, I dont' think I understand what
your argument is.
I did not mean to accuse you of anything. I merely
stated that if you play the game, why criticise others for playing
it?
This assumption has compelled many to read the text
in a certain manner, one which seeks desperately to be the first person to
discover the exhaustive, definitive answer and thus win the prize. Some
have gone to great lengths to become the victor, forwarding theories of
questionable authorship, ghostly influence, and the one you recently brought to
our attention characterizing Shade as a drunken sexual
predator.
Why the over-reach? That
characterization of Shade was one I quoted to show that I was not the only
person to conclude that Shade has something to hide, it was not my own. I would
rather say I characterize Shade as "Dr Kinbote and Mr Shade."