Subject
Re: THOUGHT: the whole codology
From
Date
Body
I intended no slight by qualifying my endorsement of Gary's views on
uncertainty. I hedged a bit because I don't see how the uncertainty view ties in
with his transformational thesis, which I do not endorse. But as far as I know,
Gary's version of the transformational view is completely original. I'm sorry if
I inadvertently suggested otherwise.
Back to the uncertainty view, I agree with what Jansy said today:
"btw: Nabokov was also ambiguous about his belief of poltergeists and ESP
phenomena..."
I think that the entire novel reflects VN's inner conflict about this very
belief, or set of beliefs, to the point that the conflict itself is one its
major themes.
"Codology" is an interesting word, as anyone can see by going here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codology
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: G S Lipon <glipon@INNERLEA.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 12:06:45 PM
Subject: [NABOKV-L] THOUGHT: the whole codology
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:04 PM, James Twiggs wrote:
In Pale Fire, thanks to the proliferation of clues, allusions, and apparent
storylines, we can never be certain of anything--not even of whether our
uncertainty is justified or not. I think I'm agreeing with Gary Lipon on this,
but we need to remember that the uncertainty interpretation of Pale Fire goes
back a long way.
I would not want to be seen as claiming to be the first reader to write about
the uncertainty abiding in Pale Fire. Hardly.
But since the issue is raised I guess I do feel I can claim some primacy,
perhaps, in seeing the need for, and a way to, reconcile the
transformational-ism limned by Matt Roth's researches; with Nabokov's dictum:
that Botkin was the author, first espoused by Mary McCarthy, but supported by
the text, and insisted upon recently by Ron Rosenbaum.
Botkin is the author of Kinbote's notes. Botkin enjoys going about pretending
to be Kinbote. Botkin composes Kinbote's notes in a way that suggests that Shade
turns into Kinbote as alter-ego. Is this original and deeply insightful, or
rather obvious and to be readily accepted? Does someone else also deserve divine
credit? Is there another way of interpreting the top-most level, the whole
codology?
I guess I think this insight is the brighter: whatever other reasons he might
have, Botkin wants to show the Shade's marriage, and Sybil, in an altogether
different light.
humbly yours,
–GSL
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 archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
uncertainty. I hedged a bit because I don't see how the uncertainty view ties in
with his transformational thesis, which I do not endorse. But as far as I know,
Gary's version of the transformational view is completely original. I'm sorry if
I inadvertently suggested otherwise.
Back to the uncertainty view, I agree with what Jansy said today:
"btw: Nabokov was also ambiguous about his belief of poltergeists and ESP
phenomena..."
I think that the entire novel reflects VN's inner conflict about this very
belief, or set of beliefs, to the point that the conflict itself is one its
major themes.
"Codology" is an interesting word, as anyone can see by going here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codology
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: G S Lipon <glipon@INNERLEA.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 12:06:45 PM
Subject: [NABOKV-L] THOUGHT: the whole codology
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:04 PM, James Twiggs wrote:
In Pale Fire, thanks to the proliferation of clues, allusions, and apparent
storylines, we can never be certain of anything--not even of whether our
uncertainty is justified or not. I think I'm agreeing with Gary Lipon on this,
but we need to remember that the uncertainty interpretation of Pale Fire goes
back a long way.
I would not want to be seen as claiming to be the first reader to write about
the uncertainty abiding in Pale Fire. Hardly.
But since the issue is raised I guess I do feel I can claim some primacy,
perhaps, in seeing the need for, and a way to, reconcile the
transformational-ism limned by Matt Roth's researches; with Nabokov's dictum:
that Botkin was the author, first espoused by Mary McCarthy, but supported by
the text, and insisted upon recently by Ron Rosenbaum.
Botkin is the author of Kinbote's notes. Botkin enjoys going about pretending
to be Kinbote. Botkin composes Kinbote's notes in a way that suggests that Shade
turns into Kinbote as alter-ego. Is this original and deeply insightful, or
rather obvious and to be readily accepted? Does someone else also deserve divine
credit? Is there another way of interpreting the top-most level, the whole
codology?
I guess I think this insight is the brighter: whatever other reasons he might
have, Botkin wants to show the Shade's marriage, and Sybil, in an altogether
different light.
humbly yours,
–GSL
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 archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/