Subject
Twiggs's response to McEwan (quality of Pale Fire poem)
From
Date
Body
Dear Jamie--
Your point about how any poem can be made to sound
ridiculous when read aloud in a certain way is well
taken. But the opposite is also true, isn't it? In my
experience, at least, a writer's strong performance at
the podium can make a mediocre poem--a poem that has
no life on the page and in the silence of the
study--seem impressive. This is why, back in my time,
many reputable poets considered it cheap and dishonest
to "perform" their work, or to "put on a show." When
they gave public readings, they used their natural
voices and left it at that. Nowadays the weakest
writer in a creative-writing class may be, for a while
at least, the brightest star, simply because she knows
how to present herself and how to perform in public.
Or consider the case of Humbert Humbert. Nabokov
reading the part, with that voice of his, and that
accent, would scare a little American girl to death.
Either that or send her into gales of laughter. But
James Mason or Jeremy Irons--that's a different story,
isn't it?
You and I "hear" Shade's poem differently. That's
fine. As Mary McCarthy said a long time ago, Pale Fire
is a do-it-yourself novel, in a way that most novels
aren't. I tried to present my case forcefully and with
some solid backing from VN's own ideas about comedy,
but I'm not dogmatic about it. Furthermore, when I saw
how blithely William Monroe's fine essay could be
brushed aside, I had no illusions about the fate of my
own small effort.
It's worth pointing out, however, that Monroe and I
are hardly alone in seeing Shade's poem as something
less than stellar. Besides a few members of the List,
we're joined in this opinion by a number of
well-known and well-respected critics, including
George Cloyne, F.W. Dupee, Alvin B. Kernan, Richard
Rorty, Michael Wood, Robert M. Adams, and Elizabeth
Hardwick. Of these critics, the last two come closest
to expressing the view that I defended. "Shade the
poet," Adams says, "seems to me as much a joke as
Kinbote the critic." Hardwick's judgment is short and
brutal: "The brilliant Pale Fire is entirely the
deranged annotation of a dreadful poem."
I do not, however, believe that Shade's entire poem is
kitsch. I find much of it genuinely touching, and
there's no question that it contains lines of great
beauty and force. It is not, as a whole, a joke in the
same way that Twain's "Ode" is a joke. Nabokov's joke
goes deeper and would not work if the poem was
straight parody all the way through. As you know,
Nabokov spoke at times of how good writing can make
spines tingle and hairs rise. That can happen with
parts of "Pale Fire." But in reading the poem you need
to pay attention to another sensation as well. If
you're not sometimes aware of a feeling in your leg,
almost as if it were being tugged at and sometimes
even jerked, the chances are good that you're missing
something. So it seems to me.
If you wish to pursue these questions further, I'll be
happy to send you, off-List if that would be more
appropriate, the bibliographic details and, in some
cases, web links for the pertinent reviews and essays
of the writers mentioned above.
As for the sentence about the pebble, I wouldn't think
of mocking such an idea--which, however, is hardly
original with Nabokov. Philosophy, both Eastern and
Western, is full of such insights, as are the works of
a good many psychoanalysts and therapists. One of my
favorite poems--Stevens' "The Plain Sense of
Things"--is a profound meditation on this very topic.
It also contains, as I'm sure you know, at least one
line that would never make it through workshop.
I greatly appreciate your reading my essay.
Best wishes,
Jim Twiggs
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
Your point about how any poem can be made to sound
ridiculous when read aloud in a certain way is well
taken. But the opposite is also true, isn't it? In my
experience, at least, a writer's strong performance at
the podium can make a mediocre poem--a poem that has
no life on the page and in the silence of the
study--seem impressive. This is why, back in my time,
many reputable poets considered it cheap and dishonest
to "perform" their work, or to "put on a show." When
they gave public readings, they used their natural
voices and left it at that. Nowadays the weakest
writer in a creative-writing class may be, for a while
at least, the brightest star, simply because she knows
how to present herself and how to perform in public.
Or consider the case of Humbert Humbert. Nabokov
reading the part, with that voice of his, and that
accent, would scare a little American girl to death.
Either that or send her into gales of laughter. But
James Mason or Jeremy Irons--that's a different story,
isn't it?
You and I "hear" Shade's poem differently. That's
fine. As Mary McCarthy said a long time ago, Pale Fire
is a do-it-yourself novel, in a way that most novels
aren't. I tried to present my case forcefully and with
some solid backing from VN's own ideas about comedy,
but I'm not dogmatic about it. Furthermore, when I saw
how blithely William Monroe's fine essay could be
brushed aside, I had no illusions about the fate of my
own small effort.
It's worth pointing out, however, that Monroe and I
are hardly alone in seeing Shade's poem as something
less than stellar. Besides a few members of the List,
we're joined in this opinion by a number of
well-known and well-respected critics, including
George Cloyne, F.W. Dupee, Alvin B. Kernan, Richard
Rorty, Michael Wood, Robert M. Adams, and Elizabeth
Hardwick. Of these critics, the last two come closest
to expressing the view that I defended. "Shade the
poet," Adams says, "seems to me as much a joke as
Kinbote the critic." Hardwick's judgment is short and
brutal: "The brilliant Pale Fire is entirely the
deranged annotation of a dreadful poem."
I do not, however, believe that Shade's entire poem is
kitsch. I find much of it genuinely touching, and
there's no question that it contains lines of great
beauty and force. It is not, as a whole, a joke in the
same way that Twain's "Ode" is a joke. Nabokov's joke
goes deeper and would not work if the poem was
straight parody all the way through. As you know,
Nabokov spoke at times of how good writing can make
spines tingle and hairs rise. That can happen with
parts of "Pale Fire." But in reading the poem you need
to pay attention to another sensation as well. If
you're not sometimes aware of a feeling in your leg,
almost as if it were being tugged at and sometimes
even jerked, the chances are good that you're missing
something. So it seems to me.
If you wish to pursue these questions further, I'll be
happy to send you, off-List if that would be more
appropriate, the bibliographic details and, in some
cases, web links for the pertinent reviews and essays
of the writers mentioned above.
As for the sentence about the pebble, I wouldn't think
of mocking such an idea--which, however, is hardly
original with Nabokov. Philosophy, both Eastern and
Western, is full of such insights, as are the works of
a good many psychoanalysts and therapists. One of my
favorite poems--Stevens' "The Plain Sense of
Things"--is a profound meditation on this very topic.
It also contains, as I'm sure you know, at least one
line that would never make it through workshop.
I greatly appreciate your reading my essay.
Best wishes,
Jim Twiggs
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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