-------- Original Message --------
Dear List Members,
I'm surprised Brian Boyd accuses me of puzzle-solving when the entire
gravamen of my objection to his Hazel Shade theory is that it skews a
reading of the novel toward puzzle solving, skews the reading of the
novel toward elaborate searches for Hazel Shade allusions to buttress
his jigsaw solution. And because he is Brian Boyd, his vast and
well-deserved respect as a biographer gives what I regard as his less
stellar skills as a close reader undue weight. With the effect of
reducing a multifaceted novel into a Hazel Shade ghost hunt. It would
be a shame if such a diminished interpretation becomes gospel.
Nothing in my post argues that Botkin "solves" the novel. I was just
shocked that Boyd now fails to mention VN's own words--cited in Boyd's
own biography about Botkin, in his recent postings, making the poor
fellow disappear.
I believe, of course, that once a work of art is released into the
world it doesn't "belong" entirely to its author, but on the other hand
it might be wise to at least take the author's words into account. Boyd
says he does in his book, although he proceeds to contradict VN
explicitly on the subject. Substituting own's own conjecture's for the
novelist's is a perilous game. I don't think his epiphany and six week
frenzy of explication has held up over the years I think that is why
(as I have been arguing) Boyd has been backing away from the
forcefulness of his intial strong Hazel Shade conjecture ever since the
book came out.
It doesn't stand up to scrutiny although one can admire, as I did,
his <Pale Fire> frenzy of obsessiveness, his wish to "own it"
through imposing his own novel interpretation on it. But we see in the
Ginkgo Press essay and in his recent posts here which give us
etiolated, third hand connections ("Pippa passes" etc) that he is
shying away from the strong connection he makes in the book. I don't
blame him. I applauded it when he retracted his Shadean allegiance. I
admire the man I just think he should get out of the game of conjuring
up ghost writers.
While I am a devotee of close reading I don't believe that it
licenses any old interpretation, that anything goes. Seven types of
ambiguity, yes, seven to the seventh power?
And so I'd repeat VN's fairly non-ambiguous words (from the Boyd bio)
since Boyd declines to allude to them in his most recent post:
"At the end of his 1962 diary, Nabokov drafted some phrases for
possible interviews: 'I wonder if any reader will notice the following
details: 1) that the nasty commentator is not an ex-King and not even
Dr. Kinbote but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman …'" This
has nothing to do with Mary Mccarthy despite Boyd's apparent attempt to
pass off Botkin on her. It's VN himself.
Perhaps we should ask why Professor Boyd feels the need to
substitute his own self-proclaimed ingenuity for VN's fairly
unequivocal declaration. He may be right, he may well be more
percipient about <Pale Fire> than its author. (He got many good
reviews, he informs us and we all know that reviewers are never wrong,
although they may be intimidated by Boyd's <biograhical> as
opposed to exegetical strengths.)
I think it's important that list members--and potential first time
readers--should not be intimidated by the attempt to force <Pale
Fire> into Hazel Shade's Procrustean grave.
Ron Rosenbaum