Subject
THOUGHTS: Bobolinks and apophenia
From
Date
Body
Jerry Friedman finally responds to Joseph Aisenberg,
deleting things we'll have to agree to disagree on.
> J.A. re:
...
> Even when
> you notice it, and most people never will, you're still
> stuck with the fact that this otherworld derives from an
> unreliable
> narrator--N.s mixing of authorial intention with character
> motivation introduces, I think, not fully intended
> ambiguities and distortions. Sometimes these enhance the
> fiction, other times they just seem obscure or forced, or
> both. This is a problem of just about all of N.'s first
> person narratives (excepting Lolita).
...
Why isn't it a problem in /Lolita/? You can easily
disbelieve any or all of the narrative, including John
Ray, Jr. Somebody has suggested here that the murder of
Quilty is one of a number of imaginary scenes. I apologize,
but I can't remember who the person was, nor can I find it
in the archives.
> As I said
> before, were one presented with this as a true-life
> account it would seem less believable than a story by
> Stephen King.
...
It's an interesting thought. Here's a related question:
what if one found an acrostic, apparently by a ghost, in
something one had written?
> You got at part of
> the issue I have in mind when you pointed out that Aunt
> Maude still has her speaking problem, apparently, even in
> the afterworld. You asked an intriguing question too: if
> you're not saddled with the limitations you had in life,
> then would you still be you?
That's a generalization of how I was interpreting Shade's
question.
> But if you do remain saddled
> with those bodily pangs, being a broken down
> ninety-something, then it seems like everything N. ever
> said would be wrong, the material terms of existence
> would define everything, even after death.
I agree that Aunt Maud's fate seems horrible, but we're free
to imagine that her aphasia applies only when she's back in
our world, or that she hasn't gotten over it yet but she
will, or that it's a deserved punishment or necessary
atonement, or whatever. Anyway, I think it's there as a clue
to the identity of the will-o-the-wisp, not as a hint about
the mechanics of life after death.
> In the "Vane Sisters"
> he seems to be suggesting that the narrator has such an
> unpleasant personality that he can't see the real
> unreal spiritual beauty all around him, and I can't help
> but object to these terms. How would ordinary human values
> of taste and depth and sensitivity obtain in the
> otherworld?
It's easy to believe a self-centered, not very smart person
could miss the beauty around him (and I say this as someone
who would have missed more than the narrator of "The Vane
Sisters" did.
> Does one have to be the right sort?
...
I've noticed that writers who invent afterlives tend to do
well in them.
> Anyway, the acrostic, shiny and
> forced, seems like a bunch of keys N. waves around to
> keep us from thinking out the mechanics of this sort of
> metaphysics.
...
Again, I don't think the mechanics are the point. The
point is the fun the reader is supposed to have in figuring
out that there are ghosts in the story.
JF:> Also, as I always say, if Kinbote would garble his
> invented ghostly warning and pretend not to understand it,
> you can't trust him on anything. Then how can you
> infer that he has a "need to take Shade's poem" or
> that he "plunges into folly and bad behavior"? Maybe
> those are also his plants.
>
> J.A.'s re: Now you're getting my point.
That was my point! That is, we agree on it.
> Of course,
> as I said, I don't literally think the Maude stuff was a
> plant by Kinbote, just that in a way it was. He's the
> one who puts this information in the story, Nabokov's
> intent as disguised by Kinbote. Hence my idea that
> distortions and ambiguities have been introduced that
> can't be resolved, the nature of which I don't
> think was really intentional.
If you're saying that you can't reconstruct a "real story"
in /Pale Fire/, I'm fine with that. See my upcoming and
equally belated response to SK-B for a mathematical
proof (kidding).
Jerry Friedman
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/
deleting things we'll have to agree to disagree on.
> J.A. re:
...
> Even when
> you notice it, and most people never will, you're still
> stuck with the fact that this otherworld derives from an
> unreliable
> narrator--N.s mixing of authorial intention with character
> motivation introduces, I think, not fully intended
> ambiguities and distortions. Sometimes these enhance the
> fiction, other times they just seem obscure or forced, or
> both. This is a problem of just about all of N.'s first
> person narratives (excepting Lolita).
...
Why isn't it a problem in /Lolita/? You can easily
disbelieve any or all of the narrative, including John
Ray, Jr. Somebody has suggested here that the murder of
Quilty is one of a number of imaginary scenes. I apologize,
but I can't remember who the person was, nor can I find it
in the archives.
> As I said
> before, were one presented with this as a true-life
> account it would seem less believable than a story by
> Stephen King.
...
It's an interesting thought. Here's a related question:
what if one found an acrostic, apparently by a ghost, in
something one had written?
> You got at part of
> the issue I have in mind when you pointed out that Aunt
> Maude still has her speaking problem, apparently, even in
> the afterworld. You asked an intriguing question too: if
> you're not saddled with the limitations you had in life,
> then would you still be you?
That's a generalization of how I was interpreting Shade's
question.
> But if you do remain saddled
> with those bodily pangs, being a broken down
> ninety-something, then it seems like everything N. ever
> said would be wrong, the material terms of existence
> would define everything, even after death.
I agree that Aunt Maud's fate seems horrible, but we're free
to imagine that her aphasia applies only when she's back in
our world, or that she hasn't gotten over it yet but she
will, or that it's a deserved punishment or necessary
atonement, or whatever. Anyway, I think it's there as a clue
to the identity of the will-o-the-wisp, not as a hint about
the mechanics of life after death.
> In the "Vane Sisters"
> he seems to be suggesting that the narrator has such an
> unpleasant personality that he can't see the real
> unreal spiritual beauty all around him, and I can't help
> but object to these terms. How would ordinary human values
> of taste and depth and sensitivity obtain in the
> otherworld?
It's easy to believe a self-centered, not very smart person
could miss the beauty around him (and I say this as someone
who would have missed more than the narrator of "The Vane
Sisters" did.
> Does one have to be the right sort?
...
I've noticed that writers who invent afterlives tend to do
well in them.
> Anyway, the acrostic, shiny and
> forced, seems like a bunch of keys N. waves around to
> keep us from thinking out the mechanics of this sort of
> metaphysics.
...
Again, I don't think the mechanics are the point. The
point is the fun the reader is supposed to have in figuring
out that there are ghosts in the story.
JF:> Also, as I always say, if Kinbote would garble his
> invented ghostly warning and pretend not to understand it,
> you can't trust him on anything. Then how can you
> infer that he has a "need to take Shade's poem" or
> that he "plunges into folly and bad behavior"? Maybe
> those are also his plants.
>
> J.A.'s re: Now you're getting my point.
That was my point! That is, we agree on it.
> Of course,
> as I said, I don't literally think the Maude stuff was a
> plant by Kinbote, just that in a way it was. He's the
> one who puts this information in the story, Nabokov's
> intent as disguised by Kinbote. Hence my idea that
> distortions and ambiguities have been introduced that
> can't be resolved, the nature of which I don't
> think was really intentional.
If you're saying that you can't reconstruct a "real story"
in /Pale Fire/, I'm fine with that. See my upcoming and
equally belated response to SK-B for a mathematical
proof (kidding).
Jerry Friedman
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/