Vladimir Nabokov

NABOKV-L post 0012197, Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:08:00 -0800

Subject
Brian Boyd respons to John Ridland's critique of poem "Pale Fire"
Date
Body


----- Forwarded message from b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz -----
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:37:19 +1300
From: Brian Boyd <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
Reply-To: Brian Boyd <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Letter about Socher's TLS article on Frost and VN
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum

> The TLS October 21, 2005
>
> Kinbote and Shade
>
> Sir, - . . .
>
> A larger question is how to evaluate John Shade's poem. One hopes
> that Nabokov composed "Pale Fire" in the same spirit that moved
> Chaucer to assign himself "The Tale of Sir Thopas" in The
> Canterbury Tales. "Pale Fire" is not a "major" poem on its own but
> a lengthy piece of light verse, heavy at times and wholly subsumed
> in the crazed narration of its fictitious annotator's commentary.
> It is crudely crafted in an often mechanical iambic pentameter -
> what Chaucer's Host calls "rym doggerel" - with sentences flying
> off and crashing against the invisible line ends:
>
>
> I cannot understand why from the lake /
> I could make out our front porch when I'd take /
> Lake Road to school, whilst now, although no tree /
> Has intervened, I look but fail to see /
> Even the roof. (41-45)
>
>
> Whether the "drasty rymyng" of "Pale Fire" is "worth a toord" or
> not, Professor Kinbote's droppings on it have fertilized the whole
> field of what Abraham Socher admires as "fantastically ingenious
> Pale Fire scholarship".
>
>
> JOHN RIDLAND
> 1725 Hillcrest Road, Santa Barbara, California 93103.

>
John Ridland, although he hasn't the nerve to say so, evidently
thinks "Pale Fire" the poem not "worth a turd." I am puzzled by such
judgments, common even among Nabokovians.

I simply do not know what he means by "sentences flying off and
crashing against the invisible line ends." Shade's lines quoted here
are certainly not high intensity. Indeed, they are supremely relaxed
conversational English, yet conform to strict heroic couplet form.
That in itself is an achievement, especially as a contrast both to
the high style of other parts of his poem (in other words, there is
modulation between poetic pitches that seems to me a deliberate
challenge to, and far subtler than, comparable effects in Eliot's
"Four Quartets") and to the clogged poetic density that is the norm
in so much modern verse.

These lines introduce the lake, a poignantly charged locus in the
poem, in a seemingly casual way; they also introduce the fact that
Shade has lived all his life in the same house, and that this is a
central part of the identity that his poem will limn for us (and,
within the novel as a whole, a striking contrast to his neighbor
Kinbote, the exile in a rented house that helps him to invent Zembla
as his childhood home); and they suggest that Shade is himself an
exile from his past, that despite living his life in the same space,
he cannot reenter its old time, since the failure to see the roof is
most likely a consequence of the deterioration of his eyesight with
age--although there is also a hint that there's something more than
that, a shimmer of mystery in the midst of the mundane.

Shade's rhymes here are banal, make, take, tree, see. Yet elsewhere
in the poem his rhymes are hardly pedestrian: "Rabelais / lay / (P) /
we," to take another four-line stretch; or an Englishman's
mispronounced French nourris and Nice; or complex patterns in -ain
and -ane; or a wittily end- and internally-rhymed reflection on
French and English rhyming (963-70); or the final line missing its
matching rhyme until we return to the first line. In the four lines
Ridland quotes, the rhymes are routine, in order to describe a
regular routine--but a routine that nevertheless masks a disturbing
shift in solid space or airy time.

Shade himself writes later in the poem "this was the real point, the
contrapuntal theme," and Kinbote refers, perfectly accurately, for
once, in the midst of an otherwise insane sentence, to "the
contrapuntal nature of Shade's art." Perhaps the clearest refutation
of Ridland's evaluation, in the very lines he quotes, is that beneath
the low-dazzle surface lies the subtle syllabic counterpointing in
the first 21 syllables (lake . . . make . . . take / Lake) and the
transformation of the "lake . . . Lake" repetition framing that
pattern into the "look" in the next line: first a series of
repetitions, like the repeated walks along Lake Road, then a
transformation along with the continuity, like the "quirk in space"
that troubles Shade.

It is hard to see much when you choose not to look.

Brian Boyd

----- End forwarded message -----
Attachment