Subject
Fw: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
lines) ------------------
> Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by the
> following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other men
> die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds much
like
> Falter when he says to Sineusov:
>
> "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is mortal;
> you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not mortal.
Why?
> Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be any
> man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a different way
> than you."
>
> Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the Posterior
> Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second example
> isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the piffle and
> prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up Boyd's
> idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the child
> Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from Pale
> Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a further
> indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is indeed
> alive.
>
> The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are mentioned (as
> they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
passage
> a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person presently
> living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already died.
> It's an interesting paradox.
>
> Apologies if this has been covered
>
From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
lines) ------------------
> Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by the
> following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other men
> die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds much
like
> Falter when he says to Sineusov:
>
> "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is mortal;
> you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not mortal.
Why?
> Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be any
> man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a different way
> than you."
>
> Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the Posterior
> Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second example
> isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the piffle and
> prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up Boyd's
> idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the child
> Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from Pale
> Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a further
> indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is indeed
> alive.
>
> The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are mentioned (as
> they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
passage
> a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person presently
> living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already died.
> It's an interesting paradox.
>
> Apologies if this has been covered
>