Dear Stan,
 
The interview I did with Gardner was focused on things other than Nabokov (which is why there was so little to offer about Nabokov from it). But I did ask Gardner about his metaphysics. He was a debunker of unscientific thinking but as of 2008 still very much a champion of God-in-the-Universe (my own name for it), which seemed to me a sort of science revealing the divine, but which also seem somewhat separate from Intelligent Design.
 
I fished several times for Pale Fire material from Gardner. He enjoyed the book, he liked the book, but he didn't have any special interpretations to offer as of last year--which in no way rules out his having had those interpretations several decades ago. He was convinced (as Johnson noted) and mentioned in a revised version of The Ambidextrous Universe that Look at the Harlequins! was influenced by the first version of his book.
 
In addition to Johnson's piece, another interesting one on this topic is "Ambivalence: Symmetry, Assymetry, and the Physics of Time Reversal in Nabokov's Ada," from The Cosmic Web: Scientific Field Models and Literary Strategies in the 20th century, by N. Katherine Hayles.
 
And you are right about Gardner's modesty. He still sees himself as a lucky amateur.
 
Andrea
 

 
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@utk.edu> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] more Martin Gardner
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:12:37 +0000
From: skb@bootle.biz
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
References: <CCAD54B9-D496-45BC-80D0-5876F1D88FCD@earthlink.net>



Carolyn/ED: indeed, Martin Gardner is a _household_ name to all
mathematicians, although he always modestly rules himself out of the
category of "real" mathematician, being content to be justly famed for
his prolific deeds in the branch of math known as "recreational." It's
not easy for "outsiders" to appreciate the shifting gap, since many a
playful notion, such as removing your waistcoat without first removing
your jacket (ditto, no offense, shedding your knickers if your
shoelaces are tied together) turns out to have deep topological
implications!

The mutual admiration 'twixt VN and MG is hardly surprising given
their love of puzzles, word-play; after-life speculation (MG has a
strange chapter in one of
his memoirs, I recall, claiming a belief in life-after-death that was
not incompatible with his agnosticism-bordering-on-atheism); Lewis
Carroll (as well as annotating Alice, MG also wrote a wonderfully
annotated Hunting of the Snark). Where VN might diverge from MG
mathematically is in the oft-debated "dichotomy" between the
"particular" and the "general." MG was more aware than VN that "real"
mathematics _starts_ when all those amusing tricks with Pascal
Triangles and Fibonacci Series turn out to be particular cases of much
more magical "higher" abstractions.

MG doesn't appear in the index of "VN Selected Letters, 1940-1977" but
I _have_ found a rare error in that index! The entry 'Pale Fire p 322'
sends you to a page 322 that has no such mention of PF! Was a ghostly
Kinbote at work while Dmitri was pre-occupied? I would love to see any
extant mail between VN and MG, and will explore the refs. given. As
you'll see anon, MG gets a direct mention in Ada! There's added
immortality!

Dare I mention that I once wrote to MG pointing out an error in his
description of the Turing Machine? Shortly after that article in
American Scientist, he was
replaced by the Hoffstadter (sp?) of Bach/Go:del/GoldenBraid fame, who
proved a poor substitute. Not until my former colleague Ian Stewart
FRS took over, did AmSci find a genuine "real" mathematician-columnist
with MG's "recreational" prowess.

The email below is a tad ambiguous, CK. Was your located tidbit the following
para starting "EDNOTE ..." or is that a current EDNOTE commenting on your
finds?

The exchanges between VN and MG, recounted in Brian Boyd's VN-TAY,
page 465 (and presumably explored further in the refs. below) is most
amusing.

"This increasingly depressing ritual [a spate of mis-ascribing quotes
to VN, e.g., some said Mary McCarthy was really a VN pseudonym!] was
redeemed only by Nabokov fan Martin Gardner, who in his 'Ambidextrous
Universe' attributed the poem 'Pale Fire' solely to John Shade, as if
Nabokov never existed. In 'Ada,' Nabokov returned the compliment:
'Space is swarming in the eyes, and Time a singing in the eyes,' says
John Shade, a modern poet, as quoted by an invented philosopher
('Martin Gardner') the 'Ambidextrous Universe,' page 165."
(Ada, p 542)

There no sign in these snippets that MG's playful ref. to John Shade
as the sole living author of the Cantos can be construed as MG
supporting a Shade-as-Kinbote author of the Commentaries. Perhaps
elsewhere MG advanced such claims?

Again: pardons begged from those over-familiar with the above.

skb








Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.


Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.