> Sorry, I don't understand the question.

 

I’ll try to explain. When something suites your theory you go all the way. When something does not, you doubt it existence. I pointed out author’s appeal presented to you via Kinbote. If you believe that reading based on arbitrary selection what exist and what does not offers solution to novel puzzle as you see it, the burden of proof is on you.

 

- George

While mostly delusional, Kinbote is astonishingly right in subtle ways. For example, he said this about Pale Fire, the poem: ³I liked it better when expecting less.²  I wonder if that is not author¹s appeal. And if not, then why (using one of your prompting figures of speech)? As far as aspiring authors of multi-personality theory of PF go, the burden of proof is on them.