----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: reply to Mr Brown Pale Fire Hazel
Ms. Kunin,
I have to say that I join you in not being able to
see any postumous influence of Hazel Shade. One of the
few instances I can think of in which some distinct non-human entity plays
a role in PF is that red admirable that flutters for a few moments ahead of John
Shade and Charles Kinbote as they walk toward Kinbote's house where the murderer
is waiting. I think some have interpreted that as Hazel's spirit. If anything, I
see it as Nabokov's signature, or spirit, in some sense, similar to the scene in
Pnin where the narrator and one of the other guests at that country house in
Vermont (I don't have the book at hand) are walking in the woods and see a
flurry of butterflies in a marsh. One of the characters mentions that a third
person known to both of them would know what those butterflies or moths are
called, and the other walker says that he thinks that third person's interest in
lepidoptera is something of a pose.
I cannot see Hazel as having a hand in writing any
portion of PF, whether foreword, poem, commentary or index. And I cannot
believe, as some have said, that John Shade wrote the index.
AB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:27
PM
Subject: Fw: reply to Mr Brown Pale Fire
Hazel
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: reply to Mr Brown
Dear Mr Brown,
The stanza serves to point up Hazel's
"outsiderness." The term roommate is casual collegiate terminology like
coed. Casual for Shade, who, as an oldster, is separated from student life.
As casual as the use of the term would be to a Timofey Pnin, who had long
ceased to be too much aware of students on the campus.
Yes, you are right. That is
one possible interpretation. But that's to forget that Nabokov is a master of
deception, self-admittedly so. I don't think the reader can ever go wrong
asking if he is being deceived.
This is why Shade's choice of the word roommate
has been accepted without question for 40 years. Not because millions of
readers around the world have missed a clue to Shade's presumed philandering
nature.
At the risk of seeming
presumptuous, I do think millions of readers (or certainly thousands) have
missed many clues to Shade's second nature. Perhaps no one reader can
see everything that is potentially in this novel. I, for example, cannot
detect Hazel's posthumous influences no matter how hard I look.
Carolyn
Kunin