Subject
JF against CK's theory
From
Date
Body
Dear Carolyn,
A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's
a fairy baby stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human
baby they want.
This is going to be a long message--I'm going to rebut your
arguments and present objections to your theory that I think
are insuperable. On "versipel", no one has mentioned the
literal meaning of the passage. Shade rhymes and roams from
room to room, absently holding a comb, a shoehorn, a spoon.
He occasionally notices what he's holding, but he's been
concentrating on his poetry, so he doesn't remember putting
down the previous object and picking up the present one. Hence
he whimsically says one object has turned into another,
and just as whimsically calls it a shapechanger; since it's
with him all the time as he writes, he calls it his muse,
which brings in a pun on the /verse/ he's writing. (A
versipel is by no means necessarily evil or demonic, by
the way. The first sympathetic one who comes to mind is the
Norwegian hero Bodhvar Bjarki, who turns into a bear at the
climax of the Danish saga of Hrolf Kraki.)
I don't see that anything more is /needed/. Of course in
Nabokov we can always look for more. If the versipel is
seen as demonic, then Andrew Brown's and others' explanation
of Shade's muse making him write about Hazel's death seems
reasonable to me. (For comparison with a real poet, James
Dickey wrote an essay in which he says the poet becomes a
monster--I think because the poet considers esthetically
and technically what normal people consider only with bliss
or grief.) And the versipel fits with the theme of
metamorphosis, as Jansy mentioned, in particular with Botkin's
metamorphosis into Kinbote. I'd see that more as a sign from
Nabokov than from Shade.
Speaking of Botkin, one of the strongest arguments against
the G-K-S theory is that Nabokov endorsed the Botkin-Kinbote
theory, according to Boyd's biography. And any references
to Jekyll and Hyde fit the Botkin theory as well as yours.
On "your favorite", that's certainly odd, but like George
Shimanovich I took it as addressing the reader, who Kinbote
may patronizingly assume to be a human-interest reader. It
could also be addressing "good old Frank", though. In any
case, I see no specific connection to Sybil--who may even
understand her husband well enough, and find the second
canto painful enough, to prefer Canto Three.
You argue that the G-K-S story is "not at all unrealistic",
but I'd like to amplify Andrew Brown's objections. In my
slight knowledge of multiple-personality disorder, I've
heard nothing about one personality claiming to talk to
another, or inventing a story for another (Gradus), or
struggling for control but describing it as a conversation
or banging the garbage cans, or building an astonishingly
well-developed delusional country, or making himself the
butt of Pooterish irony, or inventing a conversation
with someone who calls him insane, or inventing a red-herring
identity for himself (Botkin), or being released by a stroke.
Would Nabokov have thought such things happen?
People (sorry, I forget who) have brought up things like
Occam's Razor, and to me that's the other really strong
objection to your theory. You have to reject almost of
the text but turn a few words and phrases into gospel.
Not just St. Augustine, but /every/ interaction between
Kinbote and Shade can't have happened as stated. Same with
every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil. Let me give
as an example a part of the note to line 991 that I think
you consider crucial.
Kinbote describes the sounds of a summer evening on his and
Shade's street--could be Shade's description.
Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for conversation--
couldn't happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't
happen.
He describes Shade leaning his temple on his fist and looking
"like a tipsy witch". In your theory, Kinbote is not looking
at Shade, but that tipsiness is a vital clue. Kinbote
remembers experiencing Shade's stroke and is reconstructing
what it would have looked like if there had been an observer.
Shade lifts his hand in greeting--couldn't have happened
(there's no one to greet).
Kinbote and Shade talk about the poem--couldn't have happened,
but nonetheless what Shade says about his progress ("A few
trifles to settle") is true, as is the envelope filled with
cards (probably).
"'Help me, Charlie, to get out of here," he pleaded. "Foot
gone to sleep. Sybil is at a dinner meeting of her club.'"
Couldn't have happened, but the statement about Sybil might
be true, and by telling us that Shade said his foot fell
asleep, Kinbote is revealing that his/Shade's leg is paralyzed
by a stroke or what we now call a transient ischemic attack.
Kinbote and Shade continue talking about the poem--couldn't
have happened.
So you reject most of the page and a half as complete delusion,
but accept a few phrases as perfect truth. And you haven't
mentioned any criterion for selecting those phrases except
that they fit your theory. I don't see that as methodologically
sound. You could select a different small fraction of the
text, interpret as metaphorically as you do ("Foot fell asleep"
means he's temporarily paralyzed by a stroke), and prove any
other theory.
Or to put it another way, once you've rejected almost all of
the text, you're left with a Kinbote so immensely unreliable
that you can't rely on anything he says. So just like the
Shadean and Kinbotean theories, yours seems to me to lead to
the conclusion that there's no real story. But it would be
Kinbotean of me to bring in my theory in criticizing yours.
With interest in your observations but no belief in your
theory,
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
A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's
a fairy baby stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human
baby they want.
This is going to be a long message--I'm going to rebut your
arguments and present objections to your theory that I think
are insuperable. On "versipel", no one has mentioned the
literal meaning of the passage. Shade rhymes and roams from
room to room, absently holding a comb, a shoehorn, a spoon.
He occasionally notices what he's holding, but he's been
concentrating on his poetry, so he doesn't remember putting
down the previous object and picking up the present one. Hence
he whimsically says one object has turned into another,
and just as whimsically calls it a shapechanger; since it's
with him all the time as he writes, he calls it his muse,
which brings in a pun on the /verse/ he's writing. (A
versipel is by no means necessarily evil or demonic, by
the way. The first sympathetic one who comes to mind is the
Norwegian hero Bodhvar Bjarki, who turns into a bear at the
climax of the Danish saga of Hrolf Kraki.)
I don't see that anything more is /needed/. Of course in
Nabokov we can always look for more. If the versipel is
seen as demonic, then Andrew Brown's and others' explanation
of Shade's muse making him write about Hazel's death seems
reasonable to me. (For comparison with a real poet, James
Dickey wrote an essay in which he says the poet becomes a
monster--I think because the poet considers esthetically
and technically what normal people consider only with bliss
or grief.) And the versipel fits with the theme of
metamorphosis, as Jansy mentioned, in particular with Botkin's
metamorphosis into Kinbote. I'd see that more as a sign from
Nabokov than from Shade.
Speaking of Botkin, one of the strongest arguments against
the G-K-S theory is that Nabokov endorsed the Botkin-Kinbote
theory, according to Boyd's biography. And any references
to Jekyll and Hyde fit the Botkin theory as well as yours.
On "your favorite", that's certainly odd, but like George
Shimanovich I took it as addressing the reader, who Kinbote
may patronizingly assume to be a human-interest reader. It
could also be addressing "good old Frank", though. In any
case, I see no specific connection to Sybil--who may even
understand her husband well enough, and find the second
canto painful enough, to prefer Canto Three.
You argue that the G-K-S story is "not at all unrealistic",
but I'd like to amplify Andrew Brown's objections. In my
slight knowledge of multiple-personality disorder, I've
heard nothing about one personality claiming to talk to
another, or inventing a story for another (Gradus), or
struggling for control but describing it as a conversation
or banging the garbage cans, or building an astonishingly
well-developed delusional country, or making himself the
butt of Pooterish irony, or inventing a conversation
with someone who calls him insane, or inventing a red-herring
identity for himself (Botkin), or being released by a stroke.
Would Nabokov have thought such things happen?
People (sorry, I forget who) have brought up things like
Occam's Razor, and to me that's the other really strong
objection to your theory. You have to reject almost of
the text but turn a few words and phrases into gospel.
Not just St. Augustine, but /every/ interaction between
Kinbote and Shade can't have happened as stated. Same with
every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil. Let me give
as an example a part of the note to line 991 that I think
you consider crucial.
Kinbote describes the sounds of a summer evening on his and
Shade's street--could be Shade's description.
Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for conversation--
couldn't happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't
happen.
He describes Shade leaning his temple on his fist and looking
"like a tipsy witch". In your theory, Kinbote is not looking
at Shade, but that tipsiness is a vital clue. Kinbote
remembers experiencing Shade's stroke and is reconstructing
what it would have looked like if there had been an observer.
Shade lifts his hand in greeting--couldn't have happened
(there's no one to greet).
Kinbote and Shade talk about the poem--couldn't have happened,
but nonetheless what Shade says about his progress ("A few
trifles to settle") is true, as is the envelope filled with
cards (probably).
"'Help me, Charlie, to get out of here," he pleaded. "Foot
gone to sleep. Sybil is at a dinner meeting of her club.'"
Couldn't have happened, but the statement about Sybil might
be true, and by telling us that Shade said his foot fell
asleep, Kinbote is revealing that his/Shade's leg is paralyzed
by a stroke or what we now call a transient ischemic attack.
Kinbote and Shade continue talking about the poem--couldn't
have happened.
So you reject most of the page and a half as complete delusion,
but accept a few phrases as perfect truth. And you haven't
mentioned any criterion for selecting those phrases except
that they fit your theory. I don't see that as methodologically
sound. You could select a different small fraction of the
text, interpret as metaphorically as you do ("Foot fell asleep"
means he's temporarily paralyzed by a stroke), and prove any
other theory.
Or to put it another way, once you've rejected almost all of
the text, you're left with a Kinbote so immensely unreliable
that you can't rely on anything he says. So just like the
Shadean and Kinbotean theories, yours seems to me to lead to
the conclusion that there's no real story. But it would be
Kinbotean of me to bring in my theory in criticizing yours.
With interest in your observations but no belief in your
theory,
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