Subject
Re: : Re: Aisenberg's thoughts on PF]
From
Date
Body
MR (to J.A's: Here we have a novel about a man who writes a poem about looking for a way out of life, submerged in the notes of a crazy narrator who wants to see in a poem that has nothing whatsoever to do with him minute reflections of his own concerns [...] but an "answer" always eludes us, even whether or not Zembla is "real" or not]: ... To say that "the point" is that there is no final "answer" is itself a kind of exclusive interpretation, a declaration that this conclusion is, in fact, the answer.My concern with this notion is that it tends to shut down all further attempts to understand the narrative of the novel. [...] The dangeris that we will lose attempts like Brian Boyd's.[...] Even if, in the end, I don't find a new historicist reading...I probably have learned something about the book that I didn't know before. All this is a way of saying that I hope we can tolerate, and even relish,the enthusiasm and engagement that goes into those theories that, in the end, we may not prefer.
JM:I got the feeling that MR is chiding JA, after reaching a conclusion that JA was "trying to shut down all further attempts to understand the narrative of the novel." or "couldn't tolerate, and even relish" theories with which he was in disagreement. I'd like to avoid the rigmarole of "taking sides", at this point. So, I'll proceed to other issues related to the theme.
Matt seems to have isolated "the narrative of the novel" from other literary approaches as if it were possible to critically proceed without their "ghosts" ( like the "didymus": structure-content, significance-meaning , style and ...whatever.) He also returns to the name of only one ( B.Boyd) among the multipliticy of other authors who equally poured their visions, culture, "enthusiasm and engagement" into studying "Pale Fire.", thereby electing him as a sole authority over the "narrative of the novel" Pale Fire. As I see it this is also a way to "shut down" further debates or to twisted them to fit them in an excessively individualist level. Btw, B. Boyd's books are a must, no one doubts that.
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/
JM:I got the feeling that MR is chiding JA, after reaching a conclusion that JA was "trying to shut down all further attempts to understand the narrative of the novel." or "couldn't tolerate, and even relish" theories with which he was in disagreement. I'd like to avoid the rigmarole of "taking sides", at this point. So, I'll proceed to other issues related to the theme.
Matt seems to have isolated "the narrative of the novel" from other literary approaches as if it were possible to critically proceed without their "ghosts" ( like the "didymus": structure-content, significance-meaning , style and ...whatever.) He also returns to the name of only one ( B.Boyd) among the multipliticy of other authors who equally poured their visions, culture, "enthusiasm and engagement" into studying "Pale Fire.", thereby electing him as a sole authority over the "narrative of the novel" Pale Fire. As I see it this is also a way to "shut down" further debates or to twisted them to fit them in an excessively individualist level. Btw, B. Boyd's books are a must, no one doubts that.
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/