As for me, I don't understand the texture argument, neither as
it is made by Shade, nor as it is made by you. I'm strictly a text girl myself.
At least when it comes to fiction. I learned criticism (in my book that means
literary analysis) from Vladimir Markov, a scholar of that OTSLC (old text
school of literary criticism).
As for those of your comments that I am
able to follow, allow me to quote you:
I attempted in
my last response to forward the possibility that criticism can be performed free
of any personal animosity or mudslinging. It is certainly important to be
courteous but unnecessary to censor one's own argument to the point of
inanity.
I think it's wonderful that so many people are interested
in interpreting and discussing Pale Fire, but I feel that I am not alone in
thinking that the recent approaches to the text have not been particularly
successful or persuasive. It is with that mindset (and not being critical
with the negative connotation you specify) that I have attempted to show a
different way of reading the novel that may be of interest to some folks,
particularly those who would rather not depend upon Cliff Notes or pinkdog.com
or pestering Dmitri Nabokov for interesting analyses of Nabokov's
literature.
No "personal animosity or mudslinging" here. But as
the shrew says,a rather mean meaning, and I wonder why you continue to find it
necessary. But please! don't tell me. I'd rather hear from those weary
onlookers.