After lurking on this list for some time, and deleting many posts unread,
I've recently been looking at some of what has been said about Pale
Fire.
This comment from Ron Rosenbaum has now prompted me to express what I
have felt since first reading this work in paperback, some 45 years ago [Corgi,
1964]. I agree whole-heartedly that Pale Fire, the book, is most certainly "a
luminous, numinous work of art". It is equally certain that its
compositional foundation is the "poem" Pale Fire. Pale Fire, the "poem",
may be many things: a cornucopia of wit and ingenuity, not only witty and
ingenious in itself, but the cause of wit and ingenuity in other men and women,
including Kinbote; the product of immense, unique, intellectual sweat and
labour. What it is not, however, is "poetry". A versified crossword puzzle is
the phrase that has kept coming to mind. Rosenbaum's use of the words now
induces me make this assuredly unpopular observation. But I'm not
applying it to the work in toto. Pale Fire, the book, is not a crossword
puzzle. It is poetry in prose.
Charles Harrison-Wallace
In a message dated 07/08/2010 00:12:15 GMT Daylight Time, nabokv-l@UTK.EDU
writes:
Dear
List Memebers,
Has anyone else noticed the contradictory logic of B.
Boyd and his loyal defenders in regard to the role of Hazel Shade in <Pale
Fire>?
On the one hand we are told by Jerry Friedman that Boyd never
<really> argued for the role for the dead girl's ghost in
wriiting/inspiring <Pale Fire> or "Pale Fire".
On the other hand
we are told with unconvincing muse-ings such as that from R.S. Gwynn that, if
in fact Boyd did so argue (as most would agree he did), he was right.
I agree with Jansy that they are wrong on both counts. I think the
problem is that Boyd (and many others) are too eager to offer a "solution" to
<Pale Fire> as if it were some crossword puzzle rather than a luminous
numinous work of art.
Ron
Rosenbaum