On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM, R S Gwynn
<Rsgwynn1@cs.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/10/2010 2:52:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
nabokv-l@UTK.EDU writes:
Concerning Nabokov's own words on Pale Fire, I think it is important to consider the fact he made
(at least) three statements on his intentions:
1. Mentioning 'the day on which Kinbote committed suicide (and he certainly did after putting the
last touches to his edition to the poem)' to Alfred Appel Jr. in Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary
Literature (1967)
As well as the two other statements discussed previously:
2. ‘I wonder if any reader will notice... that the nasty commentator is not an ex-king and not even
Dr. Kinbote, but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman’ from his diary in 1962
3. The insertion, and subsequent deletion, of poetry attributed to John Shade in Nabokov's draft of
his revised Speak, Memory, which has used as evidence for the Shadean school of interpretation,
from a similar time period.
These statements contradict each other, if Kinbote indeed is real enough to be 'the nasty
commentator' and commit suicide, John Shade could not have constructed him, which would be
the logical conclusion if Shade has constructed the index, as indiciated by the Nabokov's insertion
to Speak, Memory. Thus, we are left with two main options as to the meaning of this shift in
interpretation (interpretation, I would stress, is the key word here. There is no correct 'solution' to
the novel, as it is not an empirical problem but a work of art, only interpretations).
But in "The Vane Sisters", a work of art, there's a problem that needs to be solved. I think just about any reader would say that an interpretation that takes that solution into account is better than one by someone who doesn't realize it's there. And when Nabokov realized that few people would find the solution, he decided to give it away.
Firstly, Nabokov may have had a Boydian change of mind about the intricacies of Pale Fire, and
decided to join the emerging Shadeans. I believe the dates do not match up for this, which leads
me to a second conclusion: Nabokov had intended for the novel to be re-read and scanned for
clues (hence the hypertextual format of the text), and probably had a few psuedo-solutions for
the reader to find (most likely that Kinbote was Botkin), but then the novel showed hidden depths
that Nabokov had not considered, which led to these contradictory statements.
I'm afraid I can't believe that Kinbote's being Botkin was a pseudo-solution, since Nabokov endorsed it. He may well have intended the reader to go on from there--I think he did--but not to the conclusion that Kinbote isn't Botkin.
The fact that Pale Fire veered out of Nabokov's control is not undesirable, however, as it has
allowed the novel to remain exciting and relevant to this day, with new theories being developed
regularly, even if one will inevitably disagree with at least half of them.
Let me compare chess problems: their esthetic value isn't exhausted when they're solved. Here's an introduction to how the other "phases of play", in addition to the solution, are of thematic interest.
http://www.chessville.com/Wong/phasesofplay.htmI believe this is what Nabokov meant by the "dazzling thematic patterns" of the Anglo-American school of chess problems (in
Speak, Memory). I must admit he doesn't say much about this that I know of in describing his own problems, though he does mention the value of the number and variety of "tries" (false solutions), but I think we should consider the possibility that knowing the "solution" to a story doesn't make it less exciting or relevant, but instead can be the "key" to understanding its richness.
Thus, I would advise with taking Nabokov's words on 'solutions' to Pale Fire with a pinch of salt,
since the novel has arguably developed into a more organic novel, than the sterile artifact it would
have become if Nabokov's statements would have become canon.
Best,
Simon Rowberry
Nabokov was capable of making mistakes, like any other writer. Some possibilities relating to your three points.
1. VN said that Kinbote committed suicide after completing the Foreword. But the Index (which is clearly the work of CK) refers to events in the Foreword and seems to have been completed last.
In particular, Nabokov said Kinbote left the Zembla entry incomplete. I suspect his comment about the Foreword was indeed a mistake (though you could probably say he finished the Foreword, had one entry left in the Index, and committed suicide before finishing that entry).
2. This has caused lots of problems, but I find none here. VN's textual clues (both in the Commentary and Index) point us toward V. Botkin.
Agreed.
3. Is it possible that VN planned an Index (with similarly intriguing "clues") for the revised edition of S,M but didn't follow through? Could he have put on the persona of Shade to say this in his diary? Or could the (posthumously speaking, in VN's impersonation) Shade have been referring to "my" in the sense that, after all, the so-called publication of Pale Fire was supposed to be an edition of the poem (with Foreword, Commentary, and Index) by JS, with CK serving as editor. Let's suppose say that Eliot had allowed a scholarly edition on Four Quartets, with the same kind of scholarly "apparatus" as Pale Fire, to be published, and then had referred to a section of that work as "my" Index. That is, the index to my poem. The deletion of this by VN may have been a belated acknowledgment that he'd made an error.
One of the fun parts of the list, and other Internet discussions, is that what's "obvious" to me doesn't even occur to other people, and what they see doesn't even occur to me.
When I read about that verse by "Shade", I thought Nabokov was just whimsically attributing it to his invented poet. After all, he was in the habit of writing English poetry for Shade. Later he realized that the poem wasn't in character for Shade. He wouldn't have needed to draw the reader's attention to any index he'd created (for his book on Pope?), and as you say, wouldn't have put a wind ex Ponto in his writing (with apologies to those who think Shade's mother was Russian). So he dropped the attribution. He might even have known Andrew Field was coming up with the Shadean interpretation of Pale Fire (published the year after the revised Speak, Memory, I believe) and wanted to avoid a false clue.