Subject
Re: from Ron Rosenbaum re VN's own words about the <Pale Fire>
narrator]
narrator]
From
Date
Body
Channeling Occam isn't an argument. By the same logic, Botkin is equally
unnecessary.
There is plenty of evidence for Hazel's persistence after death, and
presence in the novel. Indeed, I would argue that it is the central theme
of the novel. Her transformation ties together a vast web of otherwise
disconnected narrative strands.
We needn't call her the "author" if that is the objection. However, that
she influenced Botkin (which I completely agree is likely kinbote's true
identity) in his fantasy world, and may have thereby had some effect on the
composition and theme of both poem and novel is as defensible as any deep
reading.
I am preparing to host a book discussion on this topic and would be happy to
share an index of the quotes I intend to use in support of Hazel's
transformation and influence over the text. I'm sure little would not be
covered by what Boyd has already provided, however.
Regards,
~Clayton
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@utk.edu> wrote:
> EDNote: Since R. Rosenbaum's challenge here is to B. Boyd, I am not going
> to post any responses to this gauntlet until B.Boyd has had a chance to make
> his own reply, at which point I'll open the forum for others' observations.
> Normally I would have asked an author to edit out such phrases as "sadly ill
> advised" and "untethered critical virtuosity", and I point to them here as
> reminders to all to keep discourse respectful and free of *ad hominem*comments. It's a tricky boundary, and these clearly straddle it, or at
> least tickle it. Let's please stick to the facts. ~SB
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: from Ron Rosenbaum re VN's
> own words about the narrator Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:20:28 -0700 From: palefire30
> <palefire30@yahoo.com> <palefire30@yahoo.com> To:
> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> There's an old saying that when you find you're in a hole best stop
> digging. I couldn't help but think of it--and of Occams's razor (entities
> should not be multiplied beypnd necessity") when reading Brian Boyd's latest
> attempt to force the text of *Pale Fire* to offer evidence in favor of
> his assertion that Hazel Shade is the real auithor of "Pale Fire" and <Pale
> Fire>.
>
> And make no mistake about it, although he seems to be now backing away from
> it, thankfully, to register instead all sorts of Hazel Shade "presences" in
> the book, I have some first hand evidence for what he originally professed,
> because I happened to interview Profesor Boyd in 1999 in New York when he
> first announced that he had renounced his revious "shadean "Shadean"
> position (that the poet John Shade made up the madman's commentary on his
> own poem. And that Boyd had had an epiphany that it was <really> Shade's
> dead daughter Hazel whod done it and that Boyd had turned that theory into a
> book into a (sadly ill advised) six week frenzy of misreading and writing.
>
> You can read my interview with Boyd about his second conversion to a new
> narrator theory here:
>
> <http://www.observer.com/node/41393> <http://www.observer.com/node/41393>
>
> Here we have in Boyd's own words his Hazel Shade theory.
>
> But in re reading the interview I was struck by something I had
> forgotten. That VN himself explicitly tells us who <he> believed was the
> real madman narrator: V. Botkin. Not Mary Mccarthy who was the first
> reviewer to suggest it, but VN himself.
>
> I'm surprised that I haven't seen this name mentioned by the many
> discussants of the question on the list of late--it's only the author's own
> words after all. But here is how I introduced those words in the article on
> Boyd above.although
>
>
> "The controversy over the commentary began almost as soon as the 1962
> publication of Pale Fire , with a now-famous New Republic essay by Mary
> McCarthy about the novel (an essay entitled "A Bolt From the Blue") which
> called it "one of the very great works of art of the 20th century," and
> which advanced a strikingly ingenious conjecture about the identity of the
> mad commentator, Charles Kinbote: "The real, real story" of Pale Fire , she
> argued, is that Kinbote and his Zemblan Kingdom are both the invention of a
> barely mentioned figure in the novel, a fellow faculty member of Kinbote and
> Shade, a fellow identified in the commentary only as "V. Botkin." Although
> V. Botkin is referred to only briefly, he occupies a disproportionate amount
> of space in the index "Kinbote" has appended to his commentary. And from
> clues in the index and elsewhere, Mary McCarthy argued that Kinbote was a
> fictive persona created anagrammatically by V. Botkin (a name
> enclasped,
> I've just noticed, by the initials V.N.).
>
> It was a brilliant conjecture which was adopted by most readers and critics
> for nearly three decades until Brian Boyd sought to overturn it. [Actually
> Andrew Field was the first Shadean, Boyd a later disciple]. It [the Botkin
> theory] was a conjecture which Mr. Boyd's own research in the Nabokov
> archives seemed to confirm. According to a footnote in Mr. Boyd's second
> volume of his Nabokov biography, "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 …'"
>
> Sure I suppose the novel is so linguistically complex, one could spend
> the rest of one's career, as Boyd seems willing to do, defending or backing
> off slowly from his Hazel Shade conjecture.
>
> But it would be sad if this brilliant biographer decides that he wants
> as part of his legacy to be identified with what William of Occam would have
> called an unnecessary entity. (Hazel as author). it would be sad if readers
> of <Pale Fire> were to take this tortured interpretation as a key to unlock
> the novel's magic.
>
> Isn't it time we gave VN's own words about the narrator and their
> implications the attention they deserve rather than inventing distractions
> in order to demonstrate an untethered critical virtuosity?
>
> Come back to V. Botkin, Brian Boyd.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Search the archive<http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en> Contact
> the Editors <nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> Visit "Nabokov
> Online Journal" <http://www.nabokovonline.com> Visit Zembla<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> View
> Nabokv-L Policies <http://web.utk.edu/%7Esblackwe/EDNote.htm> Manage
> subscription options <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/>
>
> All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
> co-editors.
>
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
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
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
unnecessary.
There is plenty of evidence for Hazel's persistence after death, and
presence in the novel. Indeed, I would argue that it is the central theme
of the novel. Her transformation ties together a vast web of otherwise
disconnected narrative strands.
We needn't call her the "author" if that is the objection. However, that
she influenced Botkin (which I completely agree is likely kinbote's true
identity) in his fantasy world, and may have thereby had some effect on the
composition and theme of both poem and novel is as defensible as any deep
reading.
I am preparing to host a book discussion on this topic and would be happy to
share an index of the quotes I intend to use in support of Hazel's
transformation and influence over the text. I'm sure little would not be
covered by what Boyd has already provided, however.
Regards,
~Clayton
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@utk.edu> wrote:
> EDNote: Since R. Rosenbaum's challenge here is to B. Boyd, I am not going
> to post any responses to this gauntlet until B.Boyd has had a chance to make
> his own reply, at which point I'll open the forum for others' observations.
> Normally I would have asked an author to edit out such phrases as "sadly ill
> advised" and "untethered critical virtuosity", and I point to them here as
> reminders to all to keep discourse respectful and free of *ad hominem*comments. It's a tricky boundary, and these clearly straddle it, or at
> least tickle it. Let's please stick to the facts. ~SB
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: from Ron Rosenbaum re VN's
> own words about the narrator Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:20:28 -0700 From: palefire30
> <palefire30@yahoo.com> <palefire30@yahoo.com> To:
> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> There's an old saying that when you find you're in a hole best stop
> digging. I couldn't help but think of it--and of Occams's razor (entities
> should not be multiplied beypnd necessity") when reading Brian Boyd's latest
> attempt to force the text of *Pale Fire* to offer evidence in favor of
> his assertion that Hazel Shade is the real auithor of "Pale Fire" and <Pale
> Fire>.
>
> And make no mistake about it, although he seems to be now backing away from
> it, thankfully, to register instead all sorts of Hazel Shade "presences" in
> the book, I have some first hand evidence for what he originally professed,
> because I happened to interview Profesor Boyd in 1999 in New York when he
> first announced that he had renounced his revious "shadean "Shadean"
> position (that the poet John Shade made up the madman's commentary on his
> own poem. And that Boyd had had an epiphany that it was <really> Shade's
> dead daughter Hazel whod done it and that Boyd had turned that theory into a
> book into a (sadly ill advised) six week frenzy of misreading and writing.
>
> You can read my interview with Boyd about his second conversion to a new
> narrator theory here:
>
> <http://www.observer.com/node/41393> <http://www.observer.com/node/41393>
>
> Here we have in Boyd's own words his Hazel Shade theory.
>
> But in re reading the interview I was struck by something I had
> forgotten. That VN himself explicitly tells us who <he> believed was the
> real madman narrator: V. Botkin. Not Mary Mccarthy who was the first
> reviewer to suggest it, but VN himself.
>
> I'm surprised that I haven't seen this name mentioned by the many
> discussants of the question on the list of late--it's only the author's own
> words after all. But here is how I introduced those words in the article on
> Boyd above.although
>
>
> "The controversy over the commentary began almost as soon as the 1962
> publication of Pale Fire , with a now-famous New Republic essay by Mary
> McCarthy about the novel (an essay entitled "A Bolt From the Blue") which
> called it "one of the very great works of art of the 20th century," and
> which advanced a strikingly ingenious conjecture about the identity of the
> mad commentator, Charles Kinbote: "The real, real story" of Pale Fire , she
> argued, is that Kinbote and his Zemblan Kingdom are both the invention of a
> barely mentioned figure in the novel, a fellow faculty member of Kinbote and
> Shade, a fellow identified in the commentary only as "V. Botkin." Although
> V. Botkin is referred to only briefly, he occupies a disproportionate amount
> of space in the index "Kinbote" has appended to his commentary. And from
> clues in the index and elsewhere, Mary McCarthy argued that Kinbote was a
> fictive persona created anagrammatically by V. Botkin (a name
> enclasped,
> I've just noticed, by the initials V.N.).
>
> It was a brilliant conjecture which was adopted by most readers and critics
> for nearly three decades until Brian Boyd sought to overturn it. [Actually
> Andrew Field was the first Shadean, Boyd a later disciple]. It [the Botkin
> theory] was a conjecture which Mr. Boyd's own research in the Nabokov
> archives seemed to confirm. According to a footnote in Mr. Boyd's second
> volume of his Nabokov biography, "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 …'"
>
> Sure I suppose the novel is so linguistically complex, one could spend
> the rest of one's career, as Boyd seems willing to do, defending or backing
> off slowly from his Hazel Shade conjecture.
>
> But it would be sad if this brilliant biographer decides that he wants
> as part of his legacy to be identified with what William of Occam would have
> called an unnecessary entity. (Hazel as author). it would be sad if readers
> of <Pale Fire> were to take this tortured interpretation as a key to unlock
> the novel's magic.
>
> Isn't it time we gave VN's own words about the narrator and their
> implications the attention they deserve rather than inventing distractions
> in order to demonstrate an untethered critical virtuosity?
>
> Come back to V. Botkin, Brian Boyd.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Search the archive<http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en> Contact
> the Editors <nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> Visit "Nabokov
> Online Journal" <http://www.nabokovonline.com> Visit Zembla<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> View
> Nabokv-L Policies <http://web.utk.edu/%7Esblackwe/EDNote.htm> Manage
> subscription options <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/>
>
> All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
> co-editors.
>
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
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
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/