Matt Roth: I have had only sporadic access to the internet over the past few weeks, so I am just catching up on everything. Excuse me if I missed a post or three. A few comments: While I think we all should be grateful for Ron Rosenbaum's enthusiasm--his Observer article first led me to Brian Boyd's criticism on PF--I can't understand his point about the Botkin-Kinbote relationship… none of that criticism negates the very great value of PFMAD. It is a startling, even beautiful, work of scholarship, even if I don't prefer the ultimate thesis that binds its brilliant pieces together. And really that's all we have (preferences) since every theory of PF has its weaknesses. I love Jansy's  Murakami quote ("To put it another way, the riddles function as part of the solution. It's hard to explain, but that's the kind of novel I set out to write") which seems to me such an apt description of PF, and is also very close, as I recall, to what VN said about Lolita--that the problem and solution were one and the same.

JM: I was relieved that Matt brought up Murakami related to the specific quote about riddles and solutions. Although I rather enjoy all kinds of mad-goose-chases and (un)realities, I decided against placing it (Murakami’s) in relation to what we find (or fail to find) in Nabokov’s “Pale Fire,” because of their contexts and, mainly, considering the distance between “genii” and “talant” (has anyone investigated the Russian word for “talent” instead of the “atalanta” link? Cf. SO p/b p.146).
A loose plot is not “an open, infinite, plot” (the latter I apply to “PF”).