Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
>
> pynchon-l-digest Tuesday, July 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3380
>
>
>
> Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: anagram BHSU ECKART
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
> NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> VLVL2 Hosting / Discussion Schedule
> RE: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Richard Romeo <romeocheeseburger@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
>
> Hi all--
>
> wasn't Houellebeq's The Elementary Particles another
> example of a story that the reader realizes at the end
> is being written by the narrator (who in this case is
> an alien if memory serves?)
>
> can someone send the updates reading schedule for Pale
> Fire? sorry, been out of the loop recently
>
> p.s. calling scott badger--please email me--lost yr
> email. d'oh!
>
> p.p.s saw Lost in La Mancha recently on DVD--not as
> interesting but Gilliam's interviews with Elvis
> Mitchell and Salman Rushdie are quite good.
> Word is Gilliam is doing Brothers Grimm for his next
> project--reportedly shooting in Prague I read
> somewhere w/ matt damon
>
>
> best to all
> rich
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Yes, in the final volume.
> >
> >
> > > Does Marcel ever get to the point where he writes
> > it? Can't remember.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:49:52 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> MalignD writes,
>
> > Pale Fire followed Lolita and Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita
in
> > Pale Fire (and I never noticed the Haze, L connection, although I feel
certain
> > VN did), but I can't quite see the "influence" in the relationship
between the
> > two books.
>
> My "Everyman's Library" edition of "Pale Fire" contains an introduction by
> Richard Rorty. Most of this introduction is spent comparing "Lolita" and
> "Pale Fire" -- Rorty makes some good points about Nabokov placing his
> readers into a skewed POV, but I think he's utterly off base in finding
any
> sympathy with Kinbote. Rorty contends that Shade is essentially not very
> engaging, and that the reader's interest really lies with Kinbote, even to
> the point in sharing disappointment that Kinbote's tale of Zembla does not
> appear in the final poem. I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning,
and
> felt a lot of sympathy for Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did
> feel sympathy for the admittedly monstrous Humbert....
>
> Anyway, you may wish to check out the essay....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:05:50 +0100
> From: "Burns, Erik" <Erik.Burns@dowjones.com>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Foax:
>
> malignd wrote:
>
> >There are some interesting things in your post, but I find things to
> >question, one being what do you mean by "influence"? Pale Fire followed
> Lolita and
> >Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita in Pale Fire (and I never
noticed
> the
> >Haze, L connection, although I feel certain VN did), but I can't quite
see
> >the "influence" in the relationship between the two books.
>
> I realize I'm out on a limb here, but bear with me while I saw a bit more.
> Here's my idea: that what "influenced" VN was the uproar over _Lolita_,
not
> the book per se. (I think it's tautological to say an author influences
> himself.) It seems to me (and I may be one of the few people who read
_Pale
> Fire_ before reading _Lolita_) that _PF_ is a response to the uproar - a
> similar story, but "safely" told (the troublesome young woman remains the
> focus, but is dead early on, not to mention the hilarious academic drag it
> gets dressed up in). VN's final joke, of course, being that in a world
> without your nymphet (that is, a world with Haze-L absent) you
nevertheless
> get your mania, murder and mayhem. Kinbote is, like Humbert, a weird
> European washed up on the shores of small-town American academe. In
> Humbert's case, Lolita leads him astray; in Kinbote's it's "Pale Fire,"
(the
> poem) and his own delusions. Shade is like Charlotte: in the way. (I've
> always thought one of literature most shocking murders - and I
deliberately
> mean here the murder of a character by the author - is the death of
> Charlotte Haze. So convenient! Breathtaking. It still gives me the willies
> to think of it.)
>
> Of course, by making the object of Kinbote's affection a poem (or even
more
> abstractly, his delusions), VN also makes the retroactive point
(operative,
> too, in _Lolita_ but overrun by the uproar) that this is all about
> Lo-lo-logophilia, not paedophilia.
>
> Of course, this analysis pends on VN's thinking and the effects of the
real
> world on his writing, a no-no in some circles. But at the same time there
is
> the _Eugene Onegin_ translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale Fire_.
>
> as for this:
>
> >This seems to me simply wrong; in any case it doesn't easily scan. It's
> >difficult to see Gradus as other than a figment of Kinbote's imaginings.
> Jack
> >Grey, who kills Shade, has nothing to do with either Kinbote or Shade
> (prior to
> >killing Shade, of course); he mistakes Shade for Judge Goldsworth and
kills
> >him out of that mistake.
>
> That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on who you're trusting at
> this point. One thing I like about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly
> sure what happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I don't trust
> any of them, including the apparently reliable narrator who attempts to
> correct Kinbote's errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
don't
> want) to trust this reading either. (Though I accept it is the one that
> makes the most *sense,* whatever that means in this novel.)
>
> etb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:26:33 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: re: anagram BHSU ECKART
>
> Jbor wrote:
> >I suspect, though can't say for certain, that the poem 'Pale Fire' is
intended
> > as parodic (of Eliot, for example, as much as of some of the more absurd
> > excesses of the Romantics).
> > best
>
> _____NOTES________
>
>
>
> "BHSU," she cried and cried
> when awful darkness and silence reign
> Over the great Gromboolian plain,
> Through the long, long wintry nights;
> When the angry breakers roar,
> As they beat on the rocky shore;
> When Storm-clouds brood on the towering heights
> Of the Hills on the Chankly Bore.
>
> --Peter O'Parody de Dover Beach
>
>
> Excerpt from "The Dong with the Luminous Nose", Edwards Lear's poem
> about the Jumblies, including one Jumbly Girl. Those familiar with
> Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" will appreciate Lear's nonsense parody:
>
> The sea is calm to-night.
> The tide is full, the moon lies fair
> Upon the straits; -on the French coast the light
> Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
> Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
> Come to the window, sweet is the night air!
> Only, from the long line of spray
> Where the sea meets the moon-blanch'd land,
> Listen! you hear the grating roar
> Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
> At their return, up the high strand,
> Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
> With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
> The eternal note of sadness in.
>
>
> BHSU is an anagram--BUSH (the current President of the USA and his Clan,
> as well as the BUSH or Vietnam. VL is a novel about Vietnam.
>
> It's not a novel about rOckets or the ROCKET but it is a novel about
> rAckets and the RACKET.
>
> ECKART is an anagram--Racket: A business or an occupation. A dishonest
> business or practice, especially one that obtains money through fraud or
> extortion. An easy, profitable means of livelihood. VL is a novel about
> Rackets. ⌠Meister Eckhart.■ 1260?-1327?. German theologian regarded as
> the founder of mysticism in Germany. His influential works concern the
> union of the individual soul with God.
>
> From VL "...smell of distant fireworks, the spilled, the broken
> world."
>
> --The Phrenic, of or relating to the mind (an Anagram-- the
> Pincher)
>
>
> Marxmellow McChewin: A mellowed Marxism (i.e., Zoyd) drops X-ray vision
> and TUBES OUT or the global village.
>
>
> This time the pitcher of education had gone to the fountain
> once too often; it was fairly broken; and the young man had
> got to meet a hostile world without defense -- or arms.
>
> --Oh Henry
>
> This is Henry Adams.
>
> "The also sever who only stand in Waste"
>
> This is the final line of Milton's sonnet "on his blindness."
>
> So, dear Pynchonoid, although you can not see what anagrams have to do
> with Pynchon and Nabokov, there is no need for you to start shooting in
> the dark. Stencil might be down there at the bottom of the page next to
> an asterisk or something.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of sympathy
for
> Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> admittedly monstrous Humbert....
>
> I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> Now I▓m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface story
> stands on its own feet, the ⌠surface■ story of*Pale Fire* is unsatisfying.
And
> I think that▓s why so many readers are desperate to dig into it as a
puzzle to
> find some interest in the story. We don▓t really care about Kinbote, and
his
> madness is not that interesting. The poem is OK, but Kinbote nearly
ignores it
> in his Commentary, and his diversions into Zembla are only mildly
interesting.
>
> After I finished *Ada*, I commented on the Nabokov list that I found the
> ⌠surface■ story lacking. I didn▓t care about the memoirs of the
self-absorbed,
> fabulously rich and immensely talented siblings, nor about their
incestuous
> affair. The alternate world of AntiTerra also failed to generate much
> interest. The only thing which promised hope for this novel was the
prospect
> of uncovering the ⌠real■ story beneath the surface (the ⌠Terrors of
Terra■),
> which so far no scholar seems to have adequately done.
>
> I asked the Nabokov list what I was missing, and was answered with a great
> silence. But I did get offlist replies. One gentleman, the N-list▓s
gadfly,
> said that the success of Lolita had ruined Nabokov, and that no work
following
> it was any good. Another long-time regular there agreed that if the
surface
> story was all there was the book wouldn▓t be worth reading. She was
certain
> there was a secret story waiting to be discovered. I think this is a
failing
> for both books. But at least PF is short enough to allow one to go over
it as
> many time as needed to dig into its secrets┘
>
> I know many here will disagree with my sentiments.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> Fire_.>>
>
> The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> with work on the other, but the chronology is
> questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
>
> <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> whatever that means in this novel.)>>
>
> We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> and blood reality of Jack Grey.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
>
> See, e.g., ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/grimfact.htm
>
> http://www.imdb.com/Title?0355295
>
> This might be of interest ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/grimreal.htm
>
> And note as well ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/danfact.htm
>
> http://www.imdb.com/Name?Gilliam,+Terry
>
> http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3904/avfeature_3904.html
>
> - --- Richard Romeo <romeocheeseburger@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > p.p.s saw Lost in La Mancha recently on DVD--not as
> > interesting but Gilliam's interviews with Elvis
> > Mitchell and Salman Rushdie are quite good.
> > Word is Gilliam is doing Brothers Grimm for his next
> > project--reportedly shooting in Prague I read
> > somewhere w/ matt damon
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:58:55 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> David writes,
>
> > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> Exactly. In many ways, I think "Lolita" is certainly a subversive and
> "dangerous" book. It is so damn appalling attractive. Or attractively
> appalling. Or something. And yes, it *is* sexy, too -- and I have known
> women to agree with that as well. In "Lolita," Nabokov touches on a few
> uncomfortable nerves -- but as Rorty reminds us in his intro to PF, we
need
> to remember that Dolores cries at night, too.
>
> > Now I?m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface
story
> > stands on its own feet, the ?surface? story of*Pale Fire* is
unsatisfying.
>
> Actually, I agree with you 100%. I think in many ways the *idea* of PF is
> more attractive than the actual novel itself. Mind you, it is enjoyable,
and
> well-written, and marvelously inventive, and multi-layered, and funny, and
> all that: but in my opinion, "Lolita" is the better book. Both the story
and
> characters are more compelling. As you insightfully observe, without the
> existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would be
as
> engaging as they are....
>
> - --Clare Quailty
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:12:48 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> David Morris wrote:
> >
> > --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of
sympathy for
> > Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> > admittedly monstrous Humbert....
> >
> > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for Humbert? What part
> does the Foreword have in this? Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<I know many here will disagree with my sentiments.>>
>
> You are correct, sir.
>
> <<We don▓t really care about Kinbote, and his
> madness is not that interesting. The poem is OK, but
> Kinbote nearly ignores it in his Commentary, and his
> diversions into Zembla are only mildly interesting.>>
>
> Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael "we"
> won't autmatically earn your position consensus. This
> one of we disagrees with your assessment re the poem,
> re the Great Beaver and re the Commentary.
>
> And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
>
> To each his own.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:17:52 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Malignd" <malignd@yahoo.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:46 AM
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
>
> > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > Fire_.>>
> >
> > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
>
>
> The Walter Arendt translation I have was copyrighted in 1963, and Arendt
> refers to Nabokov's comments on OE in his introduction......
>
> what do you make of "torquated"?
>
> I think you will be amused by what I found....
>
> love,
> cfa
>
>
> > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> >
> > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:25:26 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> >>> As you insightfully observe, without the
> existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would be
as
> engaging as they are.... <<<
>
> I love the way Nabokov writes. Even without puzzling, Ada, and to a lesser
> extent Pale Fire, give me gooseflesh like no other.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for
> Humbert?>>
>
> He's funny, he writes like Nabokov, and he loves
> Lolita.
>
> He's mad, he's perverse, he wrecks Lolita's life, but
> he truly, desperately loves her and Nabokov
> communicates that, despite how awful the manifestation
> of that love.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:26:41 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> I think Prof. Wood suggests that the rampant sexuality of Kinbote is a
> device intended to engender "pity"...........for all its force, it remains
> largely unrequited - and I can see how it might function thusly - almost a
> spectral opposite of Hazel Shade ........consider the example as well of
> Pointsman, who, in spite of his hideous proclivities, appears quite
> sincerely tragic.......
>
>
> love,
> cfa
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terrance" <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Cc: "The Whole Sick Crew" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
>
> >
> >
> > David Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > > > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of
> sympathy for
> > > Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> > > admittedly monstrous Humbert....
> > >
> > > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
> predatory
> > > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that
sympathy,
> along
> > > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
> >
> > How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for Humbert? What part
> > does the Foreword have in this? Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> <<I think you will be amused by what I found....>>
>
> Yes? Which is?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:31:43 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> Arendt refers to four previous translations in English.
>
>
> love,
> cfa
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Malignd" <malignd@yahoo.com>
> > To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:46 AM
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> >
> > > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > > Fire_.>>
> > >
> > > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
> >
> >
> > The Walter Arendt translation I have was copyrighted in 1963, and Arendt
> > refers to Nabokov's comments on OE in his introduction......
> >
> > what do you make of "torquated"?
> >
> > I think you will be amused by what I found....
> >
> > love,
> > cfa
> >
> >
> > > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> > >
> > > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:36:01 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> According to Boyd, VN worked on _Eugene Onegin_ from 1949 to 1957, and its
> publication in 1964 was due to publishing problems. I think there's
> definitely reason to believe this work influenced _Pale Fire_.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Malignd
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:47 AM
> > To: pynchon-l@waste.org
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > Fire_.>>
> >
> > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
> >
> > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> >
> > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael "we" won't autmatically
earn
> your position consensus.
>
> Of course that goes without saying.
>
> > And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
> >
> > To each his own.
>
> That too.
>
> DM
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:01 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Despite the linkage, I have trouble with Hazel as nymphet -- if anything
> she's more anti-nymphet, inspiring opposite reactions to those around her;
> it's her sense of extreme rejection that pushes her to the ice and not the
> extreme acceptance of a Humbert.
>
> Also, I can't say I agree that Lolita leads Humbert astray. That puts a
> whole lot on the shoulders of an innocent little girl -- Humbert already
is
> astray and stays there. Similarities do exist, as you point out, between
HH
> and Kinbote, certainly: the former's pornography is Lolita, the latter's
is
> Pale Fire; but their behavior in response to it is all on themselves.
Still
> there is lots to work with in comparing the two.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Burns, Erik
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:06 AM
> > To: pynchon-l@waste.org
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> > Foax:
> >
> > malignd wrote:
> >
> > >There are some interesting things in your post, but I find things to
> > >question, one being what do you mean by "influence"? Pale Fire
followed
> > Lolita and
> > >Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita in Pale Fire (and I never
> > noticed
> > the
> > >Haze, L connection, although I feel certain VN did), but I can't quite
> > see
> > >the "influence" in the relationship between the two books.
> >
> > I realize I'm out on a limb here, but bear with me while I saw a bit
more.
> > Here's my idea: that what "influenced" VN was the uproar over _Lolita_,
> > not
> > the book per se. (I think it's tautological to say an author influences
> > himself.) It seems to me (and I may be one of the few people who read
> > _Pale
> > Fire_ before reading _Lolita_) that _PF_ is a response to the uproar - a
> > similar story, but "safely" told (the troublesome young woman remains
the
> > focus, but is dead early on, not to mention the hilarious academic drag
it
> > gets dressed up in). VN's final joke, of course, being that in a world
> > without your nymphet (that is, a world with Haze-L absent) you
> > nevertheless
> > get your mania, murder and mayhem. Kinbote is, like Humbert, a weird
> > European washed up on the shores of small-town American academe. In
> > Humbert's case, Lolita leads him astray; in Kinbote's it's "Pale Fire,"
> > (the
> > poem) and his own delusions. Shade is like Charlotte: in the way. (I've
> > always thought one of literature most shocking murders - and I
> > deliberately
> > mean here the murder of a character by the author - is the death of
> > Charlotte Haze. So convenient! Breathtaking. It still gives me the
willies
> > to think of it.)
> >
> [...]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:46:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: VLVL2 Hosting / Discussion Schedule
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> P-Listers --
>
> The group reading of Vineland begins its discussions on Monday of next =
> week. I'm finishing up a few things and researching a couple of others, =
> but I will begin posting the material for Chapter One on Monday morning.
>
> For my hosting stint, I plan to post a series of annotations to =
> accompany the reading of the chapter in much the traditional Pynchon-L =
> fashion, citing page/line and offering links where possible. I will =
> also post commentary to accompany the annotations, as well as a summary =
> of the chapter, excerpts from criticisms that are relevant to the =
> discussion at hand, lists of supplementary resources, general questions, =
> etc. I will assume that readers here have read the novel before (or at =
> least have read it in the past month or so in preparation for the group =
> read), although at this point I do not plan to focus my discussion and =
> analysis past the first chapter (in case anyone hasn't finished the =
> reading yet).
>
> My research is far from extensive, however, and I welcome any and all =
> additional links, materials, insights, and experiences that will enhance =
> the weeks of my hosting. A group read is just that -- a group effort -- =
> and while I may try to cover the basics of the chapter and ignite some =
> discussion, I look forward to your input, debate, and questioning as =
> well.
>
>
> Here's the schedule for the first third of the novel:
>
> July 14: pp. 1 - 13 -- Tim Strzechowski
>
>
> July 28: pp. 14 - 21 -- Paul Nightingale
>
>
> August 11: pp. 22 - 34 -- Dave Monroe
>
>
> August 25: pp. 35 - 55 -- Vincent A. Maeder
>
>
> Sept. 8: pp. 56 - 67 -- Toby G. Levy
>
>
> Sept. 22: pp. 68 - 91 -- Mike Weaver
>
>
> Oct. 6: pp. 92 - 106 -- Michael Joseph
>
>
> Oct. 20: pp. 107 - 129 -- Peter Fellows-McCully
>
>
> Nov. 5: pp. 130 - 153 -- Doug Millison
>
>
>
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>P-Listers --</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The group reading of <EM>Vineland =
> </EM>begins its=20
> discussions on Monday of next week. I'm finishing up a few =
> things and=20
> researching a couple of others, but I will begin posting the material =
> for=20
> Chapter One on Monday morning.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For my hosting stint, I plan to post a =
> series of=20
> annotations to accompany the reading of the chapter in much the =
> traditional=20
> Pynchon-L fashion, citing page/line and offering links where =
> possible. I=20
> will also post commentary to accompany the annotations, as well as a =
> summary of=20
> the chapter, excerpts from criticisms that are relevant to the =
> discussion at=20
> hand, lists of supplementary resources, general questions, etc. I will =
> assume=20
> that readers here have read the novel before (or at least have read it =
> in the=20
> past month or so in preparation for the group read), although at this =
> point I do=20
> not plan to focus my discussion and analysis past the first chapter (in =
> case=20
> anyone hasn't finished the reading yet).</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My research is far from extensive, =
> however, and I=20
> welcome any and all additional links, materials, insights, and =
> experiences that=20
> will enhance the weeks of my hosting. A group read is just that -- =
> a=20
> <EM>group </EM>effort -- and while I may try to cover the basics of the =
> chapter=20
> and ignite some discussion, I look forward to your input, debate, and=20
> questioning as well.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here's the schedule for the first third =
> of the=20
> novel:</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>July 14: pp. 1 - 13 -- Tim=20
> Strzechowski</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>July 28: pp. 14 - 21 -- Paul=20
> Nightingale</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>August 11: pp. 22 - 34 -- Dave =
> Monroe</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>August 25: pp. 35 - 55 -- Vincent A.=20
> Maeder</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sept. 8: pp. 56 - 67 -- Toby G. =
> Levy</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sept. 22: pp. 68 - 91 -- Mike =
> Weaver</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Oct. 6: pp. 92 - 106 -- Michael =
> Joseph</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Oct. 20: pp. 107 - 129 -- Peter=20
> Fellows-McCully</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nov. 5: pp. 130 - 153 -- Doug =
> Millison</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:46:34 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> What I like about _Pale Fire_ is its playground quality: with so many
> interconnections and winding secret passages, reading it is a big game,
and
> not like reading a novel at all. In a real sense, _Pale Fire_ *is* the
> puzzle. _Lolita_ is more of a traditional "novel", and while it has many
of
> the same playground aspects, it reads better I think as a novel than as a
> game. For all their similarities, I think these two books are very
> different at heart.
>
> As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates
for
> himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of
the
> novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a twisted
> little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when reading
> _Lolita_.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of The Great Quail
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:59 AM
> > To: The Whole Sick Crew
> > Subject: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> >
> > David writes,
> >
> > > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
> > predatory
> > > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that
sympathy,
> > along
> > > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
> >
> > Exactly. In many ways, I think "Lolita" is certainly a subversive and
> > "dangerous" book. It is so damn appalling attractive. Or attractively
> > appalling. Or something. And yes, it *is* sexy, too -- and I have known
> > women to agree with that as well. In "Lolita," Nabokov touches on a few
> > uncomfortable nerves -- but as Rorty reminds us in his intro to PF, we
> > need
> > to remember that Dolores cries at night, too.
> >
> > > Now I?m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface
> > story
> > > stands on its own feet, the ?surface? story of*Pale Fire* is
> > unsatisfying.
> >
> > Actually, I agree with you 100%. I think in many ways the *idea* of PF
is
> > more attractive than the actual novel itself. Mind you, it is enjoyable,
> > and
> > well-written, and marvelously inventive, and multi-layered, and funny,
and
> > all that: but in my opinion, "Lolita" is the better book. Both the story
> > and
> > characters are more compelling. As you insightfully observe, without the
> > existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would
be
> > as
> > engaging as they are....
> >
> > --Clare Quailty
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org> wrote:
> > Despite the linkage, I have trouble with Hazel as nymphet -- if anything
> she's more anti-nymphet, inspiring opposite reactions to those around her;
it's
> her sense of extreme rejection that pushes her to the ice and not the
extreme
> acceptance of a Humbert.
>
> Here's another question re. Hazel: Isn't the reason for her suicide a bit
> shallow? Do we really want to buy into "not pretty" as a tragedy?
Nabokov
> could have come up with any number of tragic circumstances for her torment
> besides this.
>
> > Also, I can't say I agree that Lolita leads Humbert astray. That puts a
> whole lot on the shoulders of an innocent little girl
>
> Sure, but it's slightly implied in the text if I remember. Also it fits
the
> classic response of the pedophile after he's caught: " She/He wanted it."
>
> Didn't that little girl on the Anubis want it?
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:08:16 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> > As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates
for
> > himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of
the
> > novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> > everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a
twisted
> > little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when
reading
> > _Lolita_.
>
> I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted little
> child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
> that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you
are
> seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
> Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
> two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
> coerced.
>
> Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
> fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
> open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
> "rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very different
> than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean I
> think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
> terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive. But
I
> do feel it to be different from child molestation.
>
> Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all about
it
> - -- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
> viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today,
his
> pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
> deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
>
> pynchon-l-digest Tuesday, July 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3380
>
>
>
> Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: anagram BHSU ECKART
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
> NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF - preliminary
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> VLVL2 Hosting / Discussion Schedule
> RE: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> RE: NPPF - preliminary
> Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Richard Romeo <romeocheeseburger@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
>
> Hi all--
>
> wasn't Houellebeq's The Elementary Particles another
> example of a story that the reader realizes at the end
> is being written by the narrator (who in this case is
> an alien if memory serves?)
>
> can someone send the updates reading schedule for Pale
> Fire? sorry, been out of the loop recently
>
> p.s. calling scott badger--please email me--lost yr
> email. d'oh!
>
> p.p.s saw Lost in La Mancha recently on DVD--not as
> interesting but Gilliam's interviews with Elvis
> Mitchell and Salman Rushdie are quite good.
> Word is Gilliam is doing Brothers Grimm for his next
> project--reportedly shooting in Prague I read
> somewhere w/ matt damon
>
>
> best to all
> rich
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Yes, in the final volume.
> >
> >
> > > Does Marcel ever get to the point where he writes
> > it? Can't remember.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:49:52 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> MalignD writes,
>
> > Pale Fire followed Lolita and Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita
in
> > Pale Fire (and I never noticed the Haze, L connection, although I feel
certain
> > VN did), but I can't quite see the "influence" in the relationship
between the
> > two books.
>
> My "Everyman's Library" edition of "Pale Fire" contains an introduction by
> Richard Rorty. Most of this introduction is spent comparing "Lolita" and
> "Pale Fire" -- Rorty makes some good points about Nabokov placing his
> readers into a skewed POV, but I think he's utterly off base in finding
any
> sympathy with Kinbote. Rorty contends that Shade is essentially not very
> engaging, and that the reader's interest really lies with Kinbote, even to
> the point in sharing disappointment that Kinbote's tale of Zembla does not
> appear in the final poem. I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning,
and
> felt a lot of sympathy for Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did
> feel sympathy for the admittedly monstrous Humbert....
>
> Anyway, you may wish to check out the essay....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:05:50 +0100
> From: "Burns, Erik" <Erik.Burns@dowjones.com>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Foax:
>
> malignd wrote:
>
> >There are some interesting things in your post, but I find things to
> >question, one being what do you mean by "influence"? Pale Fire followed
> Lolita and
> >Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita in Pale Fire (and I never
noticed
> the
> >Haze, L connection, although I feel certain VN did), but I can't quite
see
> >the "influence" in the relationship between the two books.
>
> I realize I'm out on a limb here, but bear with me while I saw a bit more.
> Here's my idea: that what "influenced" VN was the uproar over _Lolita_,
not
> the book per se. (I think it's tautological to say an author influences
> himself.) It seems to me (and I may be one of the few people who read
_Pale
> Fire_ before reading _Lolita_) that _PF_ is a response to the uproar - a
> similar story, but "safely" told (the troublesome young woman remains the
> focus, but is dead early on, not to mention the hilarious academic drag it
> gets dressed up in). VN's final joke, of course, being that in a world
> without your nymphet (that is, a world with Haze-L absent) you
nevertheless
> get your mania, murder and mayhem. Kinbote is, like Humbert, a weird
> European washed up on the shores of small-town American academe. In
> Humbert's case, Lolita leads him astray; in Kinbote's it's "Pale Fire,"
(the
> poem) and his own delusions. Shade is like Charlotte: in the way. (I've
> always thought one of literature most shocking murders - and I
deliberately
> mean here the murder of a character by the author - is the death of
> Charlotte Haze. So convenient! Breathtaking. It still gives me the willies
> to think of it.)
>
> Of course, by making the object of Kinbote's affection a poem (or even
more
> abstractly, his delusions), VN also makes the retroactive point
(operative,
> too, in _Lolita_ but overrun by the uproar) that this is all about
> Lo-lo-logophilia, not paedophilia.
>
> Of course, this analysis pends on VN's thinking and the effects of the
real
> world on his writing, a no-no in some circles. But at the same time there
is
> the _Eugene Onegin_ translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale Fire_.
>
> as for this:
>
> >This seems to me simply wrong; in any case it doesn't easily scan. It's
> >difficult to see Gradus as other than a figment of Kinbote's imaginings.
> Jack
> >Grey, who kills Shade, has nothing to do with either Kinbote or Shade
> (prior to
> >killing Shade, of course); he mistakes Shade for Judge Goldsworth and
kills
> >him out of that mistake.
>
> That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on who you're trusting at
> this point. One thing I like about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly
> sure what happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I don't trust
> any of them, including the apparently reliable narrator who attempts to
> correct Kinbote's errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
don't
> want) to trust this reading either. (Though I accept it is the one that
> makes the most *sense,* whatever that means in this novel.)
>
> etb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:26:33 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: re: anagram BHSU ECKART
>
> Jbor wrote:
> >I suspect, though can't say for certain, that the poem 'Pale Fire' is
intended
> > as parodic (of Eliot, for example, as much as of some of the more absurd
> > excesses of the Romantics).
> > best
>
> _____NOTES________
>
>
>
> "BHSU," she cried and cried
> when awful darkness and silence reign
> Over the great Gromboolian plain,
> Through the long, long wintry nights;
> When the angry breakers roar,
> As they beat on the rocky shore;
> When Storm-clouds brood on the towering heights
> Of the Hills on the Chankly Bore.
>
> --Peter O'Parody de Dover Beach
>
>
> Excerpt from "The Dong with the Luminous Nose", Edwards Lear's poem
> about the Jumblies, including one Jumbly Girl. Those familiar with
> Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" will appreciate Lear's nonsense parody:
>
> The sea is calm to-night.
> The tide is full, the moon lies fair
> Upon the straits; -on the French coast the light
> Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
> Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
> Come to the window, sweet is the night air!
> Only, from the long line of spray
> Where the sea meets the moon-blanch'd land,
> Listen! you hear the grating roar
> Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
> At their return, up the high strand,
> Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
> With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
> The eternal note of sadness in.
>
>
> BHSU is an anagram--BUSH (the current President of the USA and his Clan,
> as well as the BUSH or Vietnam. VL is a novel about Vietnam.
>
> It's not a novel about rOckets or the ROCKET but it is a novel about
> rAckets and the RACKET.
>
> ECKART is an anagram--Racket: A business or an occupation. A dishonest
> business or practice, especially one that obtains money through fraud or
> extortion. An easy, profitable means of livelihood. VL is a novel about
> Rackets. ⌠Meister Eckhart.■ 1260?-1327?. German theologian regarded as
> the founder of mysticism in Germany. His influential works concern the
> union of the individual soul with God.
>
> From VL "...smell of distant fireworks, the spilled, the broken
> world."
>
> --The Phrenic, of or relating to the mind (an Anagram-- the
> Pincher)
>
>
> Marxmellow McChewin: A mellowed Marxism (i.e., Zoyd) drops X-ray vision
> and TUBES OUT or the global village.
>
>
> This time the pitcher of education had gone to the fountain
> once too often; it was fairly broken; and the young man had
> got to meet a hostile world without defense -- or arms.
>
> --Oh Henry
>
> This is Henry Adams.
>
> "The also sever who only stand in Waste"
>
> This is the final line of Milton's sonnet "on his blindness."
>
> So, dear Pynchonoid, although you can not see what anagrams have to do
> with Pynchon and Nabokov, there is no need for you to start shooting in
> the dark. Stencil might be down there at the bottom of the page next to
> an asterisk or something.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of sympathy
for
> Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> admittedly monstrous Humbert....
>
> I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> Now I▓m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface story
> stands on its own feet, the ⌠surface■ story of*Pale Fire* is unsatisfying.
And
> I think that▓s why so many readers are desperate to dig into it as a
puzzle to
> find some interest in the story. We don▓t really care about Kinbote, and
his
> madness is not that interesting. The poem is OK, but Kinbote nearly
ignores it
> in his Commentary, and his diversions into Zembla are only mildly
interesting.
>
> After I finished *Ada*, I commented on the Nabokov list that I found the
> ⌠surface■ story lacking. I didn▓t care about the memoirs of the
self-absorbed,
> fabulously rich and immensely talented siblings, nor about their
incestuous
> affair. The alternate world of AntiTerra also failed to generate much
> interest. The only thing which promised hope for this novel was the
prospect
> of uncovering the ⌠real■ story beneath the surface (the ⌠Terrors of
Terra■),
> which so far no scholar seems to have adequately done.
>
> I asked the Nabokov list what I was missing, and was answered with a great
> silence. But I did get offlist replies. One gentleman, the N-list▓s
gadfly,
> said that the success of Lolita had ruined Nabokov, and that no work
following
> it was any good. Another long-time regular there agreed that if the
surface
> story was all there was the book wouldn▓t be worth reading. She was
certain
> there was a secret story waiting to be discovered. I think this is a
failing
> for both books. But at least PF is short enough to allow one to go over
it as
> many time as needed to dig into its secrets┘
>
> I know many here will disagree with my sentiments.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> Fire_.>>
>
> The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> with work on the other, but the chronology is
> questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
>
> <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> whatever that means in this novel.)>>
>
> We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> and blood reality of Jack Grey.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - Preliminary - Pale Fire
>
> See, e.g., ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/grimfact.htm
>
> http://www.imdb.com/Title?0355295
>
> This might be of interest ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/grimreal.htm
>
> And note as well ...
>
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/danfact.htm
>
> http://www.imdb.com/Name?Gilliam,+Terry
>
> http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3904/avfeature_3904.html
>
> - --- Richard Romeo <romeocheeseburger@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > p.p.s saw Lost in La Mancha recently on DVD--not as
> > interesting but Gilliam's interviews with Elvis
> > Mitchell and Salman Rushdie are quite good.
> > Word is Gilliam is doing Brothers Grimm for his next
> > project--reportedly shooting in Prague I read
> > somewhere w/ matt damon
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:58:55 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> David writes,
>
> > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> Exactly. In many ways, I think "Lolita" is certainly a subversive and
> "dangerous" book. It is so damn appalling attractive. Or attractively
> appalling. Or something. And yes, it *is* sexy, too -- and I have known
> women to agree with that as well. In "Lolita," Nabokov touches on a few
> uncomfortable nerves -- but as Rorty reminds us in his intro to PF, we
need
> to remember that Dolores cries at night, too.
>
> > Now I?m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface
story
> > stands on its own feet, the ?surface? story of*Pale Fire* is
unsatisfying.
>
> Actually, I agree with you 100%. I think in many ways the *idea* of PF is
> more attractive than the actual novel itself. Mind you, it is enjoyable,
and
> well-written, and marvelously inventive, and multi-layered, and funny, and
> all that: but in my opinion, "Lolita" is the better book. Both the story
and
> characters are more compelling. As you insightfully observe, without the
> existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would be
as
> engaging as they are....
>
> - --Clare Quailty
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:12:48 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> David Morris wrote:
> >
> > --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of
sympathy for
> > Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> > admittedly monstrous Humbert....
> >
> > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
predatory
> > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that sympathy,
along
> > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
>
> How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for Humbert? What part
> does the Foreword have in this? Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<I know many here will disagree with my sentiments.>>
>
> You are correct, sir.
>
> <<We don▓t really care about Kinbote, and his
> madness is not that interesting. The poem is OK, but
> Kinbote nearly ignores it in his Commentary, and his
> diversions into Zembla are only mildly interesting.>>
>
> Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael "we"
> won't autmatically earn your position consensus. This
> one of we disagrees with your assessment re the poem,
> re the Great Beaver and re the Commentary.
>
> And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
>
> To each his own.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:17:52 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Malignd" <malignd@yahoo.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:46 AM
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
>
> > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > Fire_.>>
> >
> > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
>
>
> The Walter Arendt translation I have was copyrighted in 1963, and Arendt
> refers to Nabokov's comments on OE in his introduction......
>
> what do you make of "torquated"?
>
> I think you will be amused by what I found....
>
> love,
> cfa
>
>
> > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> >
> > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:25:26 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> >>> As you insightfully observe, without the
> existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would be
as
> engaging as they are.... <<<
>
> I love the way Nabokov writes. Even without puzzling, Ada, and to a lesser
> extent Pale Fire, give me gooseflesh like no other.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> <<How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for
> Humbert?>>
>
> He's funny, he writes like Nabokov, and he loves
> Lolita.
>
> He's mad, he's perverse, he wrecks Lolita's life, but
> he truly, desperately loves her and Nabokov
> communicates that, despite how awful the manifestation
> of that love.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:26:41 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> I think Prof. Wood suggests that the rampant sexuality of Kinbote is a
> device intended to engender "pity"...........for all its force, it remains
> largely unrequited - and I can see how it might function thusly - almost a
> spectral opposite of Hazel Shade ........consider the example as well of
> Pointsman, who, in spite of his hideous proclivities, appears quite
> sincerely tragic.......
>
>
> love,
> cfa
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terrance" <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Cc: "The Whole Sick Crew" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
>
> >
> >
> > David Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > --- The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com> wrote:
> > > > I for one loathed Kinbote from the beginning, and felt a lot of
> sympathy for
> > > Shade....unlike in "Lolita," where I really did feel sympathy for the
> > > admittedly monstrous Humbert....
> > >
> > > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
> predatory
> > > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that
sympathy,
> along
> > > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
> >
> > How do you think N manages to engender sympathy for Humbert? What part
> > does the Foreword have in this? Have you ever read Crime and Punishment?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> <<I think you will be amused by what I found....>>
>
> Yes? Which is?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:31:43 -0400
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
> Arendt refers to four previous translations in English.
>
>
> love,
> cfa
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary onegin
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Malignd" <malignd@yahoo.com>
> > To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:46 AM
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> >
> > > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > > Fire_.>>
> > >
> > > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
> >
> >
> > The Walter Arendt translation I have was copyrighted in 1963, and Arendt
> > refers to Nabokov's comments on OE in his introduction......
> >
> > what do you make of "torquated"?
> >
> > I think you will be amused by what I found....
> >
> > love,
> > cfa
> >
> >
> > > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> > >
> > > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:36:01 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> According to Boyd, VN worked on _Eugene Onegin_ from 1949 to 1957, and its
> publication in 1964 was due to publishing problems. I think there's
> definitely reason to believe this work influenced _Pale Fire_.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Malignd
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:47 AM
> > To: pynchon-l@waste.org
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> > <<But at the same time there is the _Eugene Onegin_
> > translation/annotation and the obvious fact that this
> > shaped the structure, themes and method of _Pale
> > Fire_.>>
> >
> > The comparison to Eugene Onegin and the ensuing
> > squabble with Edmund Wilson are enticing comparisons,
> > but that Eugene Onegin was published after Pale Fire.
> > Which isn't to say that work on one didn't overlap
> > with work on the other, but the chronology is
> > questionable. There's undoubtedly someone who can
> > speak to this, but publication dates for PF and EO are
> > 1962 and 1964, respectively, so its difficult to speak
> > of EO shaping PF -- without more information, anyway.
> >
> > <<That is a *very* literal reading and it depends on
> > who you're trusting at this point. One thing I like
> > about _Pale Fire_ is that I am never exactly sure what
> > happens at the end, who kills, and why. By the end I
> > don't trust any of them, including the apparently
> > reliable narrator who attempts to correct Kinbote's
> > errors throughout. And so I can't (and deliberately
> > don't want) to trust this reading either. (Though I
> > accept it is the one that makes the most *sense,*
> > whatever that means in this novel.)>>
> >
> > We'll have ample opportunity to go into this when the
> > time comes. But I don't think one needs stick to a
> > "very literal reading" to be persuaded of the flesh
> > and blood reality of Jack Grey.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael "we" won't autmatically
earn
> your position consensus.
>
> Of course that goes without saying.
>
> > And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
> >
> > To each his own.
>
> That too.
>
> DM
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:44:01 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Despite the linkage, I have trouble with Hazel as nymphet -- if anything
> she's more anti-nymphet, inspiring opposite reactions to those around her;
> it's her sense of extreme rejection that pushes her to the ice and not the
> extreme acceptance of a Humbert.
>
> Also, I can't say I agree that Lolita leads Humbert astray. That puts a
> whole lot on the shoulders of an innocent little girl -- Humbert already
is
> astray and stays there. Similarities do exist, as you point out, between
HH
> and Kinbote, certainly: the former's pornography is Lolita, the latter's
is
> Pale Fire; but their behavior in response to it is all on themselves.
Still
> there is lots to work with in comparing the two.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Burns, Erik
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:06 AM
> > To: pynchon-l@waste.org
> > Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
> >
> > Foax:
> >
> > malignd wrote:
> >
> > >There are some interesting things in your post, but I find things to
> > >question, one being what do you mean by "influence"? Pale Fire
followed
> > Lolita and
> > >Nabokov is playful in referring to Lolita in Pale Fire (and I never
> > noticed
> > the
> > >Haze, L connection, although I feel certain VN did), but I can't quite
> > see
> > >the "influence" in the relationship between the two books.
> >
> > I realize I'm out on a limb here, but bear with me while I saw a bit
more.
> > Here's my idea: that what "influenced" VN was the uproar over _Lolita_,
> > not
> > the book per se. (I think it's tautological to say an author influences
> > himself.) It seems to me (and I may be one of the few people who read
> > _Pale
> > Fire_ before reading _Lolita_) that _PF_ is a response to the uproar - a
> > similar story, but "safely" told (the troublesome young woman remains
the
> > focus, but is dead early on, not to mention the hilarious academic drag
it
> > gets dressed up in). VN's final joke, of course, being that in a world
> > without your nymphet (that is, a world with Haze-L absent) you
> > nevertheless
> > get your mania, murder and mayhem. Kinbote is, like Humbert, a weird
> > European washed up on the shores of small-town American academe. In
> > Humbert's case, Lolita leads him astray; in Kinbote's it's "Pale Fire,"
> > (the
> > poem) and his own delusions. Shade is like Charlotte: in the way. (I've
> > always thought one of literature most shocking murders - and I
> > deliberately
> > mean here the murder of a character by the author - is the death of
> > Charlotte Haze. So convenient! Breathtaking. It still gives me the
willies
> > to think of it.)
> >
> [...]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:46:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: VLVL2 Hosting / Discussion Schedule
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> P-Listers --
>
> The group reading of Vineland begins its discussions on Monday of next =
> week. I'm finishing up a few things and researching a couple of others, =
> but I will begin posting the material for Chapter One on Monday morning.
>
> For my hosting stint, I plan to post a series of annotations to =
> accompany the reading of the chapter in much the traditional Pynchon-L =
> fashion, citing page/line and offering links where possible. I will =
> also post commentary to accompany the annotations, as well as a summary =
> of the chapter, excerpts from criticisms that are relevant to the =
> discussion at hand, lists of supplementary resources, general questions, =
> etc. I will assume that readers here have read the novel before (or at =
> least have read it in the past month or so in preparation for the group =
> read), although at this point I do not plan to focus my discussion and =
> analysis past the first chapter (in case anyone hasn't finished the =
> reading yet).
>
> My research is far from extensive, however, and I welcome any and all =
> additional links, materials, insights, and experiences that will enhance =
> the weeks of my hosting. A group read is just that -- a group effort -- =
> and while I may try to cover the basics of the chapter and ignite some =
> discussion, I look forward to your input, debate, and questioning as =
> well.
>
>
> Here's the schedule for the first third of the novel:
>
> July 14: pp. 1 - 13 -- Tim Strzechowski
>
>
> July 28: pp. 14 - 21 -- Paul Nightingale
>
>
> August 11: pp. 22 - 34 -- Dave Monroe
>
>
> August 25: pp. 35 - 55 -- Vincent A. Maeder
>
>
> Sept. 8: pp. 56 - 67 -- Toby G. Levy
>
>
> Sept. 22: pp. 68 - 91 -- Mike Weaver
>
>
> Oct. 6: pp. 92 - 106 -- Michael Joseph
>
>
> Oct. 20: pp. 107 - 129 -- Peter Fellows-McCully
>
>
> Nov. 5: pp. 130 - 153 -- Doug Millison
>
>
>
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>P-Listers --</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The group reading of <EM>Vineland =
> </EM>begins its=20
> discussions on Monday of next week. I'm finishing up a few =
> things and=20
> researching a couple of others, but I will begin posting the material =
> for=20
> Chapter One on Monday morning.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For my hosting stint, I plan to post a =
> series of=20
> annotations to accompany the reading of the chapter in much the =
> traditional=20
> Pynchon-L fashion, citing page/line and offering links where =
> possible. I=20
> will also post commentary to accompany the annotations, as well as a =
> summary of=20
> the chapter, excerpts from criticisms that are relevant to the =
> discussion at=20
> hand, lists of supplementary resources, general questions, etc. I will =
> assume=20
> that readers here have read the novel before (or at least have read it =
> in the=20
> past month or so in preparation for the group read), although at this =
> point I do=20
> not plan to focus my discussion and analysis past the first chapter (in =
> case=20
> anyone hasn't finished the reading yet).</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My research is far from extensive, =
> however, and I=20
> welcome any and all additional links, materials, insights, and =
> experiences that=20
> will enhance the weeks of my hosting. A group read is just that -- =
> a=20
> <EM>group </EM>effort -- and while I may try to cover the basics of the =
> chapter=20
> and ignite some discussion, I look forward to your input, debate, and=20
> questioning as well.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here's the schedule for the first third =
> of the=20
> novel:</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>July 14: pp. 1 - 13 -- Tim=20
> Strzechowski</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>July 28: pp. 14 - 21 -- Paul=20
> Nightingale</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>August 11: pp. 22 - 34 -- Dave =
> Monroe</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>August 25: pp. 35 - 55 -- Vincent A.=20
> Maeder</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sept. 8: pp. 56 - 67 -- Toby G. =
> Levy</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sept. 22: pp. 68 - 91 -- Mike =
> Weaver</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Oct. 6: pp. 92 - 106 -- Michael =
> Joseph</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Oct. 20: pp. 107 - 129 -- Peter=20
> Fellows-McCully</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nov. 5: pp. 130 - 153 -- Doug =
> Millison</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C34546.9D379A40--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:46:34 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> What I like about _Pale Fire_ is its playground quality: with so many
> interconnections and winding secret passages, reading it is a big game,
and
> not like reading a novel at all. In a real sense, _Pale Fire_ *is* the
> puzzle. _Lolita_ is more of a traditional "novel", and while it has many
of
> the same playground aspects, it reads better I think as a novel than as a
> game. For all their similarities, I think these two books are very
> different at heart.
>
> As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates
for
> himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of
the
> novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a twisted
> little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when reading
> _Lolita_.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of The Great Quail
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:59 AM
> > To: The Whole Sick Crew
> > Subject: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> >
> > David writes,
> >
> > > I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his
> > predatory
> > > nature. He even succeeded in causing some arousal. And that
sympathy,
> > along
> > > with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.
> >
> > Exactly. In many ways, I think "Lolita" is certainly a subversive and
> > "dangerous" book. It is so damn appalling attractive. Or attractively
> > appalling. Or something. And yes, it *is* sexy, too -- and I have known
> > women to agree with that as well. In "Lolita," Nabokov touches on a few
> > uncomfortable nerves -- but as Rorty reminds us in his intro to PF, we
> > need
> > to remember that Dolores cries at night, too.
> >
> > > Now I?m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface
> > story
> > > stands on its own feet, the ?surface? story of*Pale Fire* is
> > unsatisfying.
> >
> > Actually, I agree with you 100%. I think in many ways the *idea* of PF
is
> > more attractive than the actual novel itself. Mind you, it is enjoyable,
> > and
> > well-written, and marvelously inventive, and multi-layered, and funny,
and
> > all that: but in my opinion, "Lolita" is the better book. Both the story
> > and
> > characters are more compelling. As you insightfully observe, without the
> > existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would
be
> > as
> > engaging as they are....
> >
> > --Clare Quailty
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org> wrote:
> > Despite the linkage, I have trouble with Hazel as nymphet -- if anything
> she's more anti-nymphet, inspiring opposite reactions to those around her;
it's
> her sense of extreme rejection that pushes her to the ice and not the
extreme
> acceptance of a Humbert.
>
> Here's another question re. Hazel: Isn't the reason for her suicide a bit
> shallow? Do we really want to buy into "not pretty" as a tragedy?
Nabokov
> could have come up with any number of tragic circumstances for her torment
> besides this.
>
> > Also, I can't say I agree that Lolita leads Humbert astray. That puts a
> whole lot on the shoulders of an innocent little girl
>
> Sure, but it's slightly implied in the text if I remember. Also it fits
the
> classic response of the pedophile after he's caught: " She/He wanted it."
>
> Didn't that little girl on the Anubis want it?
>
> David Morris
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:08:16 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> > As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates
for
> > himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of
the
> > novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> > everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a
twisted
> > little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when
reading
> > _Lolita_.
>
> I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted little
> child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
> that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you
are
> seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
> Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
> two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
> coerced.
>
> Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
> fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
> open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
> "rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very different
> than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean I
> think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
> terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive. But
I
> do feel it to be different from child molestation.
>
> Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all about
it
> - -- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
> viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today,
his
> pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
> deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.