Subject
JF to CK on symmetry and Kinbote
From
Date
Body
--- Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
> Dear Jerry,
>
> Since this is the only novel I know that has an index even of any
sort,
Just as a trivial point--/The Lord of the Rings/ has several
indexes. That's one of its many parallels to PF that are
probably of interest only to those of us who are fans of both
books, and obvious anyway.
> I
> can't say that you are wrong, but in usual indexes the "he" refers to
> the
> person named in the heading. But under "Shade" in this index Shade is
> sometime "S" and sometimes "he"'; Kinbote is sometimes
> "K" and sometimes "he." The entries under "Kinbote" don't make this
> confusion.
True, but in usual commentaries the commentator doesn't tell
us much about himself.
> I do wish someone would analyze that Index - - it is quite
interesting.
> For
> example this is found on the title page: "The capital letters stand
for
> the
> three main characters G, K. S (which see) in this work."
>
> That "(which see)" is interesting because there are no such headings
in
> the
> index, whereas the rest of the "qv"s always do take you to other
> headings,
> if not always helpfully.
(Not to mention that q.v. is what the crows say.) I don't think
it would be unusual to write "which see" in a sentence and "q.v."
in index entries, for concision, but of course there might be
some other significance.
> So I think "see" might be a pun on "C" just as
> "capital letters" is a pun on "characters." My attention was drawn to
> this
> as a clue because of the odd combination of simplicity and deceit in
> this
> apparently innocent statement. I was also struck at the oddity of the
> ordering of the three "characters" (why not K, S, G or S, K, G?).
Alphabetical?
> I concluded that VN wished to draw the reader's attention to those
> characters/letters - - but of course I could be wrong as you suggest.
That's the problem with Nabokov's methods (as revealed in /The
Annotated Lolita/: any detail can be a clue, but which details are?
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
> Dear Jerry,
>
> Since this is the only novel I know that has an index even of any
sort,
Just as a trivial point--/The Lord of the Rings/ has several
indexes. That's one of its many parallels to PF that are
probably of interest only to those of us who are fans of both
books, and obvious anyway.
> I
> can't say that you are wrong, but in usual indexes the "he" refers to
> the
> person named in the heading. But under "Shade" in this index Shade is
> sometime "S" and sometimes "he"'; Kinbote is sometimes
> "K" and sometimes "he." The entries under "Kinbote" don't make this
> confusion.
True, but in usual commentaries the commentator doesn't tell
us much about himself.
> I do wish someone would analyze that Index - - it is quite
interesting.
> For
> example this is found on the title page: "The capital letters stand
for
> the
> three main characters G, K. S (which see) in this work."
>
> That "(which see)" is interesting because there are no such headings
in
> the
> index, whereas the rest of the "qv"s always do take you to other
> headings,
> if not always helpfully.
(Not to mention that q.v. is what the crows say.) I don't think
it would be unusual to write "which see" in a sentence and "q.v."
in index entries, for concision, but of course there might be
some other significance.
> So I think "see" might be a pun on "C" just as
> "capital letters" is a pun on "characters." My attention was drawn to
> this
> as a clue because of the odd combination of simplicity and deceit in
> this
> apparently innocent statement. I was also struck at the oddity of the
> ordering of the three "characters" (why not K, S, G or S, K, G?).
Alphabetical?
> I concluded that VN wished to draw the reader's attention to those
> characters/letters - - but of course I could be wrong as you suggest.
That's the problem with Nabokov's methods (as revealed in /The
Annotated Lolita/: any detail can be a clue, but which details are?
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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