Subject
JF replies to CK's reply
From
Date
Body
Dear Carolyn, some surrebuttals and stuff.
> Dear Jerry,
>
> I'm not sure I can address every objection you raised, but I'll have
a
> go.
>
> > A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's a
fairy
> baby
> stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human baby they want.
>
> The Webster's 3rd does give this meaning (a being given to change, a
> turncoat - - i.e., the literal meaning of versipel) as the first
> definition,
> and the replaced child as the second. So we are both right on this
one.
Note to self: look up words before defining them. However, the
meaning you cite is listed as "archaic" in the American Heritage
and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, and turning one's coat or being
fickle is a lot less fundamental than turning one's skin.
> 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.
>
> So, you think Shade's muse is his simple absent-mindedness?
Interesting
> idea, but distinctly odd.
No, I just think Shade whimsically used "muse" to refer to the
apparently shapechanging object that's always with him when
he writes. I don't think he's saying it inspires him. I have
no problem with "odd", though.
I realized another possibility for the versipel as muse: it
makes sense in a coded way from Shade if Kinbote, having changed
from Botkin, really inspires parts of Shade's poem as Boyd
for one has suggested.
[snip our agreement on the ambiguity of metamorphs, to use a
science-fictional word]
> 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.
>
> Yes, I agree, only I go farther and see Shade metamorph into
Kinbote.
> What
> did you make of VN's calling Hyde Dr. Jekyll's parasite?
Coincidence?
Pretty much, for now. Saying that a certain alter ego is a
parasite doesn't mean that all parasites are alter egos.
> 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.
>
> Citation please?
VNAY, note 4 to Chapter 18 (p. 709): "At the end of his 1962
diary, Nabokov drafted some phrases for possible interviews: 'I
wonder if any reader will notice the following details: 1) that
the nasty commentator is not an ex-king and not even Dr. Kinbote,
but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman....'" Ellipsis
Boyd's and a bit tantalizing.
> 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?
>
> You are absolutely right - - with the two important exceptions of
> struggling
> for control - - they do do that almost always, and spying on each
other
> - -
> they do that too, or more usually as in Pale Fire, the alternate
> personality spies on the primary one.
I'll believe they struggle for control and spy, but presenting
that as banging garbage cans is too much for my willing suspension
of disbelief (as Andrew Brown also quoted).
> The (multiple) personalities I have read about are
> comparatively sane, even boring. No Zemblas, no strokes either. But
my
> theory is that the antecedants to PF are a combination of the
> scientific
> and the literary (Zenda, Dorian Gray, J&H), that this is a novel
after
> all,
> so the fantastic aspect of Kinbote is definitely a Nabokovian
invention.
> Also the idea that strokes can trigger a metamorphosis is purely
VN's
> invention, so far as I'm aware.
Thanks. I was really objecting to your earlier claim that your
reading of PF is "realistic".
> but /every/ interaction between Kinbote and Shade can't have happened
as
> stated. Same with every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil.
>
> I'll almost agree with you. Actually, the conversations between
Kinbote
> and
> Shade may very well take place in the simple manner that people
often
> talk
> and muse to themselves, it's just a little more elaborate. What can
not
> take
> place is that Kinbote reach over and touch Shade, or that he and
the
> other
> professors discuss the King of Zembla. This is a necessary weakness
> either
> in my theory &/or in VN's riddle. I see it as the similar to the
problem
> RLS
> had with the clumsy (VN's word, I think) cocktail-transforming
device.
> VN's
> lecture on J & H is very useful to understanding how aware VN was of
the
> problems the author of such a tale sets himself.
I'm still having trouble with someone (Shade? Kinbote?) musing
to himself and presenting it as a conversation with his other
personality, or with the two personalities calmly discussing
the afterlife (for example).
> Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for
conversation--couldn't
> happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't happen.
>
> But these are Kinbote's later memories, or claims of what happened.
He
> is
> hiding, or perhaps doesn't know, what really happened. I'm not sure
I
> see
> why you see this as problematic.
I don't see this specifically as a problem. What I see as a
problem is your rejection of most of Kinbote's statements as
fabrication combined with your belief in other statements as
metaphorical versions of fictional truth--without any criterion
except whether they fit your theory.
...
> By the way, if you re-read the first humorous encounter between Shade
&
> Sybil (in car) and Kinbote (on snowy street), you'll see that VN
almost
> has
> to give the game away. As far and Shade & Sybil are concerned
Kinbote
> doesn't exist - - literally.
He doesn't /have/ to give anything away or almost do so. In
your reading, VN could have had Kinbote invent a conversation
here just as he invents others.
> With interest in your observations but no belief in your theory,
>
> I do sometimes wish VN would come back from the dead and set you all
> straight, but that isn't going to happen, is it (sigh)?
Unfortunately not (though I'm tempted to arrange a very
nice acrostic in one of my posts). I'm still hoping for Dmitri
Nabokov to say, "Yes, my father did mention something like that,"
though.
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,
>
> I'm not sure I can address every objection you raised, but I'll have
a
> go.
>
> > A changeling is not a shapechanger, skinturner, etc.; it's a
fairy
> baby
> stealthily exchanged by the fairies for a human baby they want.
>
> The Webster's 3rd does give this meaning (a being given to change, a
> turncoat - - i.e., the literal meaning of versipel) as the first
> definition,
> and the replaced child as the second. So we are both right on this
one.
Note to self: look up words before defining them. However, the
meaning you cite is listed as "archaic" in the American Heritage
and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, and turning one's coat or being
fickle is a lot less fundamental than turning one's skin.
> 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.
>
> So, you think Shade's muse is his simple absent-mindedness?
Interesting
> idea, but distinctly odd.
No, I just think Shade whimsically used "muse" to refer to the
apparently shapechanging object that's always with him when
he writes. I don't think he's saying it inspires him. I have
no problem with "odd", though.
I realized another possibility for the versipel as muse: it
makes sense in a coded way from Shade if Kinbote, having changed
from Botkin, really inspires parts of Shade's poem as Boyd
for one has suggested.
[snip our agreement on the ambiguity of metamorphs, to use a
science-fictional word]
> 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.
>
> Yes, I agree, only I go farther and see Shade metamorph into
Kinbote.
> What
> did you make of VN's calling Hyde Dr. Jekyll's parasite?
Coincidence?
Pretty much, for now. Saying that a certain alter ego is a
parasite doesn't mean that all parasites are alter egos.
> 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.
>
> Citation please?
VNAY, note 4 to Chapter 18 (p. 709): "At the end of his 1962
diary, Nabokov drafted some phrases for possible interviews: 'I
wonder if any reader will notice the following details: 1) that
the nasty commentator is not an ex-king and not even Dr. Kinbote,
but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman....'" Ellipsis
Boyd's and a bit tantalizing.
> 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?
>
> You are absolutely right - - with the two important exceptions of
> struggling
> for control - - they do do that almost always, and spying on each
other
> - -
> they do that too, or more usually as in Pale Fire, the alternate
> personality spies on the primary one.
I'll believe they struggle for control and spy, but presenting
that as banging garbage cans is too much for my willing suspension
of disbelief (as Andrew Brown also quoted).
> The (multiple) personalities I have read about are
> comparatively sane, even boring. No Zemblas, no strokes either. But
my
> theory is that the antecedants to PF are a combination of the
> scientific
> and the literary (Zenda, Dorian Gray, J&H), that this is a novel
after
> all,
> so the fantastic aspect of Kinbote is definitely a Nabokovian
invention.
> Also the idea that strokes can trigger a metamorphosis is purely
VN's
> invention, so far as I'm aware.
Thanks. I was really objecting to your earlier claim that your
reading of PF is "realistic".
> but /every/ interaction between Kinbote and Shade can't have happened
as
> stated. Same with every interaction between Kinbote and Sybil.
>
> I'll almost agree with you. Actually, the conversations between
Kinbote
> and
> Shade may very well take place in the simple manner that people
often
> talk
> and muse to themselves, it's just a little more elaborate. What can
not
> take
> place is that Kinbote reach over and touch Shade, or that he and
the
> other
> professors discuss the King of Zembla. This is a necessary weakness
> either
> in my theory &/or in VN's riddle. I see it as the similar to the
problem
> RLS
> had with the clumsy (VN's word, I think) cocktail-transforming
device.
> VN's
> lecture on J & H is very useful to understanding how aware VN was of
the
> problems the author of such a tale sets himself.
I'm still having trouble with someone (Shade? Kinbote?) musing
to himself and presenting it as a conversation with his other
personality, or with the two personalities calmly discussing
the afterlife (for example).
> Kinbote mentions his plan to lure Shade over for
conversation--couldn't
> happen. He describes sneaking up on Shade--couldn't happen.
>
> But these are Kinbote's later memories, or claims of what happened.
He
> is
> hiding, or perhaps doesn't know, what really happened. I'm not sure
I
> see
> why you see this as problematic.
I don't see this specifically as a problem. What I see as a
problem is your rejection of most of Kinbote's statements as
fabrication combined with your belief in other statements as
metaphorical versions of fictional truth--without any criterion
except whether they fit your theory.
...
> By the way, if you re-read the first humorous encounter between Shade
&
> Sybil (in car) and Kinbote (on snowy street), you'll see that VN
almost
> has
> to give the game away. As far and Shade & Sybil are concerned
Kinbote
> doesn't exist - - literally.
He doesn't /have/ to give anything away or almost do so. In
your reading, VN could have had Kinbote invent a conversation
here just as he invents others.
> With interest in your observations but no belief in your theory,
>
> I do sometimes wish VN would come back from the dead and set you all
> straight, but that isn't going to happen, is it (sigh)?
Unfortunately not (though I'm tempted to arrange a very
nice acrostic in one of my posts). I'm still hoping for Dmitri
Nabokov to say, "Yes, my father did mention something like that,"
though.
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