NABOKV-L post 0020998, Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:46:22 -0200

Re: Dead and living authors
Simon Rowbery: Perhaps enact was a clumsy word, but it was just extending the metaphor of the death of the author. Regarding subverting Nabokov's intentions and how even Nabokov cannot stop multiple readings of this text, I would say this is a positive thing. It is just that it occurs most explicitly within Pale Fire. It's perfectly fine to try and unlock the puzzles within the text in the way in which the author intended,
but individual readership is arguably greater because there's no such thing as a great book without readership.

JM:In my opinion Nabokov had no intention to limit the multiple readings of his novels, nor did he disregard his multiple reader's responses ( although he did expect them to "look like" him), so I'm basically in agreement with you. But, as I see it, Nabokov expected that at least a few readers would get his ideas, irradiating intuitions, joys and games.
Like Updike maintained, Nabokov "writes prose the only way it should be written: ecstatically." However, as I see it, this is not the same as to delve into the free-flow of Barthes' "plaisir du texte."
In "Pale Fire," "plexed artistry" "ivory pawns"and the "mysterious non-authorial web of sense" are introduced as a kind of philosophical stand, whereas he seems to enjoy cultivating a special "non-naturalistic" kind of mimetism in his response to nature's complexity (this is why I find his rejection of the freudian unconscious second "web of sense" so curious).

Search archive with Google:

Contact the Editors:,
Visit Zembla:
View Nabokv-L policies:
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:"

Manage subscription options: