Mary
Krimmel wrote in response to Matt Roth [ "Given the
energetic current of "strong opinions" swirling through The List these days--a
good thing, in my opinion--I've been thinking about how we approach novels like
Pale Fire. In particular, I've been thinking . . ."] : Good thinking,
all of it. Thank you.
Alexey wrote: As to the EROS series,
I forgot two other possibilities: ERO + S and PROSE - P (ERO is Dr Ero, who is
pursued by the Invisible Albino in one of the greatest novels of English
literature). ALBINO = ALBION.
Jansy: M.R's invited readers to join in
each other's wild goose chases according to sense of play & humor, wild
intuitions, common-sense, aso. Roth
departed, here in the list, from VN's SM passage about chess. If I understood some of Alexey's
recent messages it seems he is suggesting that we
also consider special "scrabble-game" series as
yielding instrumental clues.
Yesterday, while I was googling entries
about "infinity and eternity", LATH came into view (!!!). I was so puzzled by its opening paragraph that I felt
motivated enough to bring it up here:
I met the first of my three or four successive wives in
somewhat odd circumstances, the development of which resembled a clumsy
conspiracy, with
nonsensical details and a main plotter who not only knew
nothing of its real object but insisted on making inept moves that seemed to
preclude the
slightest possibility of success. Yet out of those very mistakes
he unwittingly wove a web, in which a set of reciprocal blunders on my
part
caused me to get involved and fulfill the destiny that was the only aim
of the plot.
The dis-oriented narrator blames the "main plotter" for his inept
moves and yet, after he recognizes a "web" (albeit an "unwittingly
woven" one), a mysterious "set of reciprocal blunders" of his gets
him involved in "his life" to fulfill a destiny that had
been already set down by the "main plotter" from the beginning.
Unfortunately I know almost nothing about
chess, but it seems that there must be a recognizable
chess-move being "plotted" and described by these lines.
The indeterminacy of writing down "three or four"
is marvellous, the more so when seen in contrast to the very definite
series of "successive" (wives).
Any ideas?