Subject
Re: RESPONSE to Aisenberg on Pale Fire's epigraph etc.
From
Date
Body
From Jim Twiggs
RESPONSE TO ANDREA PITZER
I’m indebted to you for so clearly and briefly stating, in your first two paragraphs (below) what I believe to be true of Shade's poem and also of the man. If I were writing my long letter of December 2006 today, I would recast it in places so that my respect for the poem and my compassion for the man came through more clearly. I do indeed consider him to be a complex character about whom readers’ feelings may legitimately vary. In writing that long letter I was reacting, in part, against a view of the poem as uniformly good or even great and the man as uncomplicatedly straightforward and trustworthy.
I also thank you for reminding us of the piece by Abraham Socher, which I hadn’t reread since it appeared in the TLS. Whether the conclusion is true or not, the essay strikes me as both enlightening and entertaining.
RESPONSE TO JERRY FRIEDMAN
JF: “. . . You’re saying that Nabokov unconsciously sabotaged his poem for comic and thematic purposes.”
JT: That, I guess, is my extreme back-up position. I’d like to think (and do in fact think) that VN wrote what he wrote consciously--which means that I don’t put a lot of stock in some of his reported comments about Shade and the poem. Again I’d like to point out that this is not a question that arises only, or even most often, with VN. I mentioned the case of Flannery O’Connor, but I’m sure we could all come up with examples of writers who, for one reason or another, have said things about their work that do not strike some of us as adequate at one time or another. I also seem to remember VN’s somewhere saying that “Pale Fire” was a trickier poem than it might seem to be. If so, would that count as a mark in my favor? (Does anyone else remember such a comment?)
As long as “werewolf” is being used metaphorically, I have no objection to the rest of your post. But for me, as much as I respect the contributions of Matt and Carolyn, it still seems better simply to say that in Canto IV we are presented with an unforgettable picture of a grieving father stripping himself bare for the reader. I consider the tub scene and its aftermath not great poetry by any stretch but an amazing piece of writing nonetheless.
The only part that I think fails is when VN steps in to deliver a list of his pet peeves. This is just too intrusive, it seems to me, in the same way as when, earlier on, Kinbote uses the word “voodoo” in front of “psychiatry.” In both cases, wouldn’t we be better off without the editorializing?
RESPONSE TO JANSY MELLO
There’s a part of your post-- the part where you speak of VN’s “critical views on victorian, romantic, and decadent writers, to describe conflictual urges” etc.-- that embarrasses me, because I had no such tremendously big ambitions. Nor would I feel competent to write on such lofty matters. My concerns were much more local. Other than that one passage, I enjoyed your post immensely, with its insights and wonderfully apt quotations.
I appreciate the responses.
Jim
________________________________
From: Andrea Pitzer <andrea.pitzer@GMAIL.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:00:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] RESPONSE to Aisenberg on Pale Fire's epigraph etc.
After following the Aisenberg/Twiggs debate on the quality of Pale Fire's poem, I have often wondered if the poem is not supposed to be deliberately good or bad as much as both: a piece composed in character to be the poem written by the man that (I think) Nabokov imagined Shade to be: admirable, flawed, and striving as an artist to transcend the limits that mortality and his experience have placed on him.
I very much like the idea that he comes across to some people as a callous, lousy parent, and to others as the artist triumphant. The complexity of VN's portrait of Shade feels to me miles beyond that of Krug in Bend Sinister, and I think it's possible to empathize with him or laugh at him and have both reactions be reasonable.
Since Nabokov created Shade as a sort of second-to-Frost poet, it would not surprise me that he might leave unresolved moments of struggle that don't necessarily function in the poem. Which may not be the same thing as making it deliberately bad--it might be more a matter of leaving some pieces unpolished or un-reworked on purpose. If Nabokov truly believed himself part of a trinity with Pushkin and Shakespeare, why would he make the poem as well as he could possibly write? I don't believe he intends Shade to be a poet on that level. [Someone told me just last month that the orignal title and refrain for the Willie Nelson/Pasty Cline song "Crazy" was "Stupid"--good thing Nelson believed in revision.]
My impressions may have been spurred by this piece in Zembla on Frost and Nabokov from Abraham Socher that first appeared in the TLS: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/socher.htm. I don't buy Socher's idea about the Frost poem Nabokov is referencing, but I do think it a fascinating bunch of research, and the links between Nabokov and the archetypical American poet who seems to have inspired the idea of Shade are engaging.
Andrea
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without
exception, are
read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
RESPONSE TO ANDREA PITZER
I’m indebted to you for so clearly and briefly stating, in your first two paragraphs (below) what I believe to be true of Shade's poem and also of the man. If I were writing my long letter of December 2006 today, I would recast it in places so that my respect for the poem and my compassion for the man came through more clearly. I do indeed consider him to be a complex character about whom readers’ feelings may legitimately vary. In writing that long letter I was reacting, in part, against a view of the poem as uniformly good or even great and the man as uncomplicatedly straightforward and trustworthy.
I also thank you for reminding us of the piece by Abraham Socher, which I hadn’t reread since it appeared in the TLS. Whether the conclusion is true or not, the essay strikes me as both enlightening and entertaining.
RESPONSE TO JERRY FRIEDMAN
JF: “. . . You’re saying that Nabokov unconsciously sabotaged his poem for comic and thematic purposes.”
JT: That, I guess, is my extreme back-up position. I’d like to think (and do in fact think) that VN wrote what he wrote consciously--which means that I don’t put a lot of stock in some of his reported comments about Shade and the poem. Again I’d like to point out that this is not a question that arises only, or even most often, with VN. I mentioned the case of Flannery O’Connor, but I’m sure we could all come up with examples of writers who, for one reason or another, have said things about their work that do not strike some of us as adequate at one time or another. I also seem to remember VN’s somewhere saying that “Pale Fire” was a trickier poem than it might seem to be. If so, would that count as a mark in my favor? (Does anyone else remember such a comment?)
As long as “werewolf” is being used metaphorically, I have no objection to the rest of your post. But for me, as much as I respect the contributions of Matt and Carolyn, it still seems better simply to say that in Canto IV we are presented with an unforgettable picture of a grieving father stripping himself bare for the reader. I consider the tub scene and its aftermath not great poetry by any stretch but an amazing piece of writing nonetheless.
The only part that I think fails is when VN steps in to deliver a list of his pet peeves. This is just too intrusive, it seems to me, in the same way as when, earlier on, Kinbote uses the word “voodoo” in front of “psychiatry.” In both cases, wouldn’t we be better off without the editorializing?
RESPONSE TO JANSY MELLO
There’s a part of your post-- the part where you speak of VN’s “critical views on victorian, romantic, and decadent writers, to describe conflictual urges” etc.-- that embarrasses me, because I had no such tremendously big ambitions. Nor would I feel competent to write on such lofty matters. My concerns were much more local. Other than that one passage, I enjoyed your post immensely, with its insights and wonderfully apt quotations.
I appreciate the responses.
Jim
________________________________
From: Andrea Pitzer <andrea.pitzer@GMAIL.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:00:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] RESPONSE to Aisenberg on Pale Fire's epigraph etc.
After following the Aisenberg/Twiggs debate on the quality of Pale Fire's poem, I have often wondered if the poem is not supposed to be deliberately good or bad as much as both: a piece composed in character to be the poem written by the man that (I think) Nabokov imagined Shade to be: admirable, flawed, and striving as an artist to transcend the limits that mortality and his experience have placed on him.
I very much like the idea that he comes across to some people as a callous, lousy parent, and to others as the artist triumphant. The complexity of VN's portrait of Shade feels to me miles beyond that of Krug in Bend Sinister, and I think it's possible to empathize with him or laugh at him and have both reactions be reasonable.
Since Nabokov created Shade as a sort of second-to-Frost poet, it would not surprise me that he might leave unresolved moments of struggle that don't necessarily function in the poem. Which may not be the same thing as making it deliberately bad--it might be more a matter of leaving some pieces unpolished or un-reworked on purpose. If Nabokov truly believed himself part of a trinity with Pushkin and Shakespeare, why would he make the poem as well as he could possibly write? I don't believe he intends Shade to be a poet on that level. [Someone told me just last month that the orignal title and refrain for the Willie Nelson/Pasty Cline song "Crazy" was "Stupid"--good thing Nelson believed in revision.]
My impressions may have been spurred by this piece in Zembla on Frost and Nabokov from Abraham Socher that first appeared in the TLS: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/socher.htm. I don't buy Socher's idea about the Frost poem Nabokov is referencing, but I do think it a fascinating bunch of research, and the links between Nabokov and the archetypical American poet who seems to have inspired the idea of Shade are engaging.
Andrea
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without
exception, are
read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/