Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3381 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
>
> T:
> >So, dear Pynchonoid [...]
>
> At least somebody is making an effort to relate Pale
> Fire to Pynchon -- quite tenuously in this anagram
> case, but an effort all the same. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:50:48 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Why HH never loved her
>
>> > T:
> > >So, dear Pynchonoid [...]
> >
> > At least somebody is making an effort to relate Pale
> > Fire to Pynchon -- quite tenuously in this anagram
> > case, but an effort all the same. Thanks.
> >
> > =====
> > <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 08 Jul 2003 14:00:49 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 13:08, The Great Quail wrote:
> > > As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert
creates for
> > > himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap
of the
> > > novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> > > everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a
twisted
> > > little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when
reading
> > > _Lolita_.
> >
> > I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted
little
> > child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
> > that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you
are
> > seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
> > Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
> > two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
> > coerced.
> >
> > Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
> > fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
> > open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
> > "rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very
different
> > than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean
I
> > think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
> > terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive.
But I
> > do feel it to be different from child molestation.
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying. Lolita and nymphets (in the Nabokovian
> sense) ARE prepubescent, aren't they? They lose their attractiveness and
> face early retirement from nymphet-dom once secondary sex
> characteristics appear.
>
>
> As far as Lolita's complicity in the match up is concerned, though not
> physically fully-sexual herself, she has mastered the fundamentals of
> male sexuality. This can come well before puberty (or long after)
>
> This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..
>
> P.
>
> >
> > Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all
about it
> > -- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
> > viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today,
his
> > pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
> > deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....
> >
> > --Quail
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:08:09 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
>
> Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> words?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:26:54 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> s~Z wrote:
> >
> > >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
> >
> > Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> > we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> > words?
>
> How about insect?
>
> I am that insect, brother, and it is said of me specially. All we
> Karamazovs are such insects, and, angel as you are, that insect lives in
> you, too, and will stir up a tempest in your blood. Tempests and Pale
> Fires....
>
> The Brothers Ardorazov
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:44:12 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 6:36 PM
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
> >
>
> > According to Boyd, VN worked on _Eugene Onegin_ from 1949 to 1957, and
its
> > publication in 1964 was due to publishing problems. I think there's
> > definitely reason to believe this work influenced _Pale Fire_.
> >
>
> This is correct. Boyd says that Nabokov repeats in _PF_ the structure of
his
> work on Pushkin's _Onegin_: foreword, poem, commentary and index: "roughly
> four times the size of _Pale Fire_ but in much the same proportions"
(Brian
> Boyd, 1999, p. 67). Boyd concludes that Nabokov "must have been attracted
by
> the technical challenge of telling a story, in fact several intertwined
> stories, in such an uncompromising format as the
> foreword-poem-commentary-index structure he had been working with for a
> decade." It's an interesting information and example of how an author gets
> his idea(s) for a novel. I agree to Boyd that _PF_ is kind of a "comic
> nightmare of all that could go wrong in criticism" (ibid, p. 68). There's
> seems to be some self-irony on Nabokov's side in this too. But this
> structure follows what Barth calls the "conventional dramatic structure of
> exposition, rising action, climax and dИnouement" (Barth, _Chimera_, 1972,
> p. 33). In using this, what seems to be an "uncompromising format" of a
> critic and editor Nabokov is in fact very conventional and remains within
> the dramatic frame of what every other storyteller does. Disguising the
> novel as literary criticism and maintaining the novel-structure per se in
> the same act is very well done, and I agree to Boyd too that it's no
simple
> satire on criticism but indeed a reflection on the history of literature
> hidden in this:
>
> "(...) on the shift from romance to realism, from the old kind of hero
whose
> glory the reader is invited to identify, the kings of immortal old tales
> whom Kinbote craves to join, to the modern image of everyman as artist,
the
> suburban Shade, in the modest circumstances of the real, coping with
courage
> and self-control, with imagination, curiosity and tenderness, and
kindness,
> with the fact of his mortality and his losses past and still to come."
> (Boyd, p. 70)
>
> Otto
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: failure delivery
>
> <<Here's another question re. Hazel: Isn't the reason
> for her suicide a bit shallow? Do we really want to
> buy into "not pretty" as a tragedy? Nabokov
> could have come up with any number of tragic
> circumstances for her torment besides this.>>
>
> Not pretty? You might try reading again. The section
> of the poem beginning at line 293 and describing
> Hazel, is a catalog of childhood woe.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 08 Jul 2003 16:09:13 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 14:08, s~Z wrote:
> > >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
> >
> > Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> > we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> > words?
> >
>
>
> How's about
>
> True love never lasts.
>
> Or, eventually she'll be calling you honey.
>
> p.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:11:23 +0100
> From: "Burns, Erik" <Erik.Burns@dowjones.com>
> Subject: NPPF - and Pynchon too
>
> Foax:
>
> David Morris wrote:
>
> >Didn't that little girl on the Anubis want it?
>
> Er, possibly. But she couldn't have gotten it unless Lolita'd been there
> first. (Don't forget plenty labeled _Gravity's Rainbow_ obscene, and it
> wasn't because of the "bread on porcelain waters," now was it?)
>
> But I digress. I did start, to answer akaJasperFidget (to whom I tip my
fez
> to for all the work so far and all the expectation engendered) with Hazel
> Shade as the *antithesis* of Lolita - that was my point, that VN
dispatched
> her right off so as not to have a sexy little girl running around
> distracting Kinbote from his urgent tasks. (Not that she would, I know ...
> he may not really be a King, but he surely is a queen.)
>
> And I agree that _Pale Fire_ and _Lolita_ are very different books, to be
> read differently, for different audiences even, but think there's a
> progression (regression?) into the (funny) academic drag of PF that is VN
> deliberately "smarting up" the raunch of _Lolita_. (How many people buy
and
> start reading _Pale Fire_ post-_Lolita_ in hopes of more of the same
"smut"?
> A lot, is my guess. Suckers.)
>
> Finally, only someone who has never seen the VN edition of _Eugene Onegin_
> would be unable to see its connection to PF. Volume I is 334 pages:
> Foreword, "EO" Revisited, Method of Transliteration, Calendar,
Abbreviations
> and Symbols, Translator's Introduction (81 pages, seven parts), poem
> (novel). Then Volume II: almost 1,000 MORE pages of commentary, in two
> parts, including 100+ pages of index.
>
> This is *not* something VN dashed off in two years after finishing PF;
> indeed, I always understood _PF_ was what VN did to blow off steam after
> meddling all day with his EO obsession (please, correct me if I'm wrong
> here).
>
> etb
>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: plz help
>
> I think you have been reading too much Brian Boyd...
>
> DM
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Polyplunger <plongeur@m-net.arbornet.org>
> Subject: Re: plz help
>
> u r famed "DM".... which one: dextro/// or "rondroid" ?
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, David Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > I think you have been reading too much Brian Boyd...
> >
> > DM
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Okay, this one caught my eye ...
>
> - --- Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael
> > "we" won't autmatically earn your position
> > consensus. This one of we disagrees with your
> > assessment re the poem, re the Great Beaver and
> > re the Commentary.
> >
> > And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
>
> A.greed. In re: PF, I was impatient with the poem
> (but I'm impatient with most poetry, so ...), but was
> fascinated and greatly amused by the commentary et al.
> But those "we"s, they get to me as well ...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
>>
> Oh come on you guys ... you can do better than that.
>
> Why don't we care about Kinbote?
> Why do we?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: slothenvypride <slothenvypride7@yahoo.com>
> Subject: re: We dont really care about Kinbote ...
>
> - --0-339969535-1057720358=:45526
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Terrance IS the master of verbal irony, no?
>
> Incidentally, and not to sound caustic or step on anyone's toes here, but
will anyone who is posting Pale Fire-related analysis and commentary be
equating any of it to Thomas Pynchon any time soon? I ask merely because a
month ago, many P-listers claimed that the study of Nabokov would enhance
(y)our appreciation and understanding of Pynchon, and as I recall Mr. Maeder
made a concerted effort to stress the connections between the two authors as
he coordinated the group reading. Further, since N-listers who are now
subscribing to our list might find the connections illuminating, I thought
it might be a good idea to remember why many of you chose to discuss Pale
Fire.
>
> Nevertheless, tomorrow's posts will, as always, most certainly be received
with joy and anticipation from
>
> Your humble servant,
>
> slothenvypride7
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:05:40 -0500
> From: Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Regarding PF and Lolita: Lolita is about the passion aroused by a girl who
> is described as an extraordinary beauty. Close to the center of Pale Fire
> is a girl --Haze's shade-- who seems to have been exceptionally homely.
The
> man who perhaps projected such ideal beauty onto Haze was her stepfather.
> In the case of Hazel, her father --who is also uncommonly homely-- is
heavy
> with the consciousness of her physical limitations.
>
> Regarding the narrators of Proust and Nabokov: A superficial reading of
> Lolita or Ada may lead lead to the mistaken identification of the
repellant
> narrators with the author--and to giving up on the books in disgust early
> on. But Nabokov subtly distingushes and distances himself from Humbert
> Humbert and Van Veen. In the Proust novel the narrator behaves beastly and
> remorselessly to his lovers, and reveals himself to be subject to
> preposterous social prejudices, even as he denys having any, but in
> Proust's case I could find no ironic distinction drawn between author and
> narrator. Eeyew, n'est-ce pas? How serious a flaw is this? --Grace Paley's
> response to a complaint about the obnoxious aspect of Marcel was, Well at
> last here is an author who writes truthfully about himself--and you don't
> like him!
>
> Regarding Shade, the poet: Brian Boyd is emphatic that Shade's Pale Fire
is
> major stuff. Certainly Nabokov's Shade's Pale Fire is a masterpiece, but I
> find the author behind the author to be winking or smiling through the
> lines, some of which have an apparently unconsciously droll --even if
> simultaneously tragic-- ring, or at least a parodic character; homely
lines
> of a homely author. For example: a few lines after the extraordinarily
> evocative line 57 "The phantom of my little daughter's swing," there is
> "TV's huge paperclip"; line 76-78 "certain words...such as 'bad heart'
> always to him refer, And 'cancer of the pancreas' to her" (true and
> touching, but gulptious); and Nabokov's arch lines (beginning with 295)
> that introduce the theme of Hazel's unattractiveness in the eyes of her
> parents: "At first we'd smile and say: All little girls are plump'"
> ...."'That's the awkward age.'" ..."....'Less starch, more fruit!'" ...
> "...that nice frail roommate, now a nun" ..."almost fetching". These
sad,
> laughable, impish lines, and John Shade's closeup focus on his daughter's
> physical defects, her "swollen feet" and "psoriatic fingernails," (355)
and
> his readiness to share these minutae with the world, inform the reader
that
> for Shade this unattractiveness is integrally and inevitably linked to
> unhappiness, Hazel's and his own. Does he ever inquire or --like David
> Morris-- wonder if Hazel's misery might derive from any cause or causes
> other than her bodily appearance? "She'd criticize Ferociously our
> projects" (352), but I don't think Shade ever took the hint.
>
> Re what David Morris was missing in Ada: There is at least the tragedy of
> Ada's half-sister who suffers the karmic consequences of Van's and Ada's
> passion.
>
> Re <<I think in many ways the *idea* of PF is more attractive than the
> actual novel itself.>> Here is a general idea: Brian Boyd remarked
> somewhere I think something to the effect that no writer repays careful
> reading more than Nabokov. Thank you Brian Boyd. The "actual novel itself"
> is a work of great depth and mysterious beauty.
>
> Mondegreen
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3381
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3380
>
> T:
> >So, dear Pynchonoid [...]
>
> At least somebody is making an effort to relate Pale
> Fire to Pynchon -- quite tenuously in this anagram
> case, but an effort all the same. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:50:48 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Why HH never loved her
>
>> > T:
> > >So, dear Pynchonoid [...]
> >
> > At least somebody is making an effort to relate Pale
> > Fire to Pynchon -- quite tenuously in this anagram
> > case, but an effort all the same. Thanks.
> >
> > =====
> > <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 08 Jul 2003 14:00:49 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 13:08, The Great Quail wrote:
> > > As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert
creates for
> > > himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap
of the
> > > novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> > > everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a
twisted
> > > little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when
reading
> > > _Lolita_.
> >
> > I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted
little
> > child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
> > that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you
are
> > seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
> > Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
> > two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
> > coerced.
> >
> > Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
> > fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
> > open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
> > "rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very
different
> > than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean
I
> > think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
> > terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive.
But I
> > do feel it to be different from child molestation.
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying. Lolita and nymphets (in the Nabokovian
> sense) ARE prepubescent, aren't they? They lose their attractiveness and
> face early retirement from nymphet-dom once secondary sex
> characteristics appear.
>
>
> As far as Lolita's complicity in the match up is concerned, though not
> physically fully-sexual herself, she has mastered the fundamentals of
> male sexuality. This can come well before puberty (or long after)
>
> This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..
>
> P.
>
> >
> > Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all
about it
> > -- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
> > viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today,
his
> > pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
> > deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....
> >
> > --Quail
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:08:09 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
>
> Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> words?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:26:54 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> s~Z wrote:
> >
> > >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
> >
> > Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> > we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> > words?
>
> How about insect?
>
> I am that insect, brother, and it is said of me specially. All we
> Karamazovs are such insects, and, angel as you are, that insect lives in
> you, too, and will stir up a tempest in your blood. Tempests and Pale
> Fires....
>
> The Brothers Ardorazov
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:44:12 +0200
> From: "Otto" <ottosell@yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> To: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 6:36 PM
> Subject: RE: NPPF - preliminary
> >
>
> > According to Boyd, VN worked on _Eugene Onegin_ from 1949 to 1957, and
its
> > publication in 1964 was due to publishing problems. I think there's
> > definitely reason to believe this work influenced _Pale Fire_.
> >
>
> This is correct. Boyd says that Nabokov repeats in _PF_ the structure of
his
> work on Pushkin's _Onegin_: foreword, poem, commentary and index: "roughly
> four times the size of _Pale Fire_ but in much the same proportions"
(Brian
> Boyd, 1999, p. 67). Boyd concludes that Nabokov "must have been attracted
by
> the technical challenge of telling a story, in fact several intertwined
> stories, in such an uncompromising format as the
> foreword-poem-commentary-index structure he had been working with for a
> decade." It's an interesting information and example of how an author gets
> his idea(s) for a novel. I agree to Boyd that _PF_ is kind of a "comic
> nightmare of all that could go wrong in criticism" (ibid, p. 68). There's
> seems to be some self-irony on Nabokov's side in this too. But this
> structure follows what Barth calls the "conventional dramatic structure of
> exposition, rising action, climax and dИnouement" (Barth, _Chimera_, 1972,
> p. 33). In using this, what seems to be an "uncompromising format" of a
> critic and editor Nabokov is in fact very conventional and remains within
> the dramatic frame of what every other storyteller does. Disguising the
> novel as literary criticism and maintaining the novel-structure per se in
> the same act is very well done, and I agree to Boyd too that it's no
simple
> satire on criticism but indeed a reflection on the history of literature
> hidden in this:
>
> "(...) on the shift from romance to realism, from the old kind of hero
whose
> glory the reader is invited to identify, the kings of immortal old tales
> whom Kinbote craves to join, to the modern image of everyman as artist,
the
> suburban Shade, in the modest circumstances of the real, coping with
courage
> and self-control, with imagination, curiosity and tenderness, and
kindness,
> with the fact of his mortality and his losses past and still to come."
> (Boyd, p. 70)
>
> Otto
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: failure delivery
>
> <<Here's another question re. Hazel: Isn't the reason
> for her suicide a bit shallow? Do we really want to
> buy into "not pretty" as a tragedy? Nabokov
> could have come up with any number of tragic
> circumstances for her torment besides this.>>
>
> Not pretty? You might try reading again. The section
> of the poem beginning at line 293 and describing
> Hazel, is a catalog of childhood woe.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 08 Jul 2003 16:09:13 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 14:08, s~Z wrote:
> > >>>This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..<<<
> >
> > Can we come up with a code word or anagram for this assertion so every
time
> > we show an uncanny understanding of HH we don't have to type all those
> > words?
> >
>
>
> How's about
>
> True love never lasts.
>
> Or, eventually she'll be calling you honey.
>
> p.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:11:23 +0100
> From: "Burns, Erik" <Erik.Burns@dowjones.com>
> Subject: NPPF - and Pynchon too
>
> Foax:
>
> David Morris wrote:
>
> >Didn't that little girl on the Anubis want it?
>
> Er, possibly. But she couldn't have gotten it unless Lolita'd been there
> first. (Don't forget plenty labeled _Gravity's Rainbow_ obscene, and it
> wasn't because of the "bread on porcelain waters," now was it?)
>
> But I digress. I did start, to answer akaJasperFidget (to whom I tip my
fez
> to for all the work so far and all the expectation engendered) with Hazel
> Shade as the *antithesis* of Lolita - that was my point, that VN
dispatched
> her right off so as not to have a sexy little girl running around
> distracting Kinbote from his urgent tasks. (Not that she would, I know ...
> he may not really be a King, but he surely is a queen.)
>
> And I agree that _Pale Fire_ and _Lolita_ are very different books, to be
> read differently, for different audiences even, but think there's a
> progression (regression?) into the (funny) academic drag of PF that is VN
> deliberately "smarting up" the raunch of _Lolita_. (How many people buy
and
> start reading _Pale Fire_ post-_Lolita_ in hopes of more of the same
"smut"?
> A lot, is my guess. Suckers.)
>
> Finally, only someone who has never seen the VN edition of _Eugene Onegin_
> would be unable to see its connection to PF. Volume I is 334 pages:
> Foreword, "EO" Revisited, Method of Transliteration, Calendar,
Abbreviations
> and Symbols, Translator's Introduction (81 pages, seven parts), poem
> (novel). Then Volume II: almost 1,000 MORE pages of commentary, in two
> parts, including 100+ pages of index.
>
> This is *not* something VN dashed off in two years after finishing PF;
> indeed, I always understood _PF_ was what VN did to blow off steam after
> meddling all day with his EO obsession (please, correct me if I'm wrong
> here).
>
> etb
>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: plz help
>
> I think you have been reading too much Brian Boyd...
>
> DM
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Polyplunger <plongeur@m-net.arbornet.org>
> Subject: Re: plz help
>
> u r famed "DM".... which one: dextro/// or "rondroid" ?
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, David Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > I think you have been reading too much Brian Boyd...
> >
> > DM
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Okay, this one caught my eye ...
>
> - --- Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Be advised that tossing around the Pauline Kael
> > "we" won't autmatically earn your position
> > consensus. This one of we disagrees with your
> > assessment re the poem, re the Great Beaver and
> > re the Commentary.
> >
> > And Zembla only mildly interesting!?
>
> A.greed. In re: PF, I was impatient with the poem
> (but I'm impatient with most poetry, so ...), but was
> fascinated and greatly amused by the commentary et al.
> But those "we"s, they get to me as well ...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
>>
> Oh come on you guys ... you can do better than that.
>
> Why don't we care about Kinbote?
> Why do we?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: slothenvypride <slothenvypride7@yahoo.com>
> Subject: re: We dont really care about Kinbote ...
>
> - --0-339969535-1057720358=:45526
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Terrance IS the master of verbal irony, no?
>
> Incidentally, and not to sound caustic or step on anyone's toes here, but
will anyone who is posting Pale Fire-related analysis and commentary be
equating any of it to Thomas Pynchon any time soon? I ask merely because a
month ago, many P-listers claimed that the study of Nabokov would enhance
(y)our appreciation and understanding of Pynchon, and as I recall Mr. Maeder
made a concerted effort to stress the connections between the two authors as
he coordinated the group reading. Further, since N-listers who are now
subscribing to our list might find the connections illuminating, I thought
it might be a good idea to remember why many of you chose to discuss Pale
Fire.
>
> Nevertheless, tomorrow's posts will, as always, most certainly be received
with joy and anticipation from
>
> Your humble servant,
>
> slothenvypride7
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:05:40 -0500
> From: Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org>
> Subject: re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> Regarding PF and Lolita: Lolita is about the passion aroused by a girl who
> is described as an extraordinary beauty. Close to the center of Pale Fire
> is a girl --Haze's shade-- who seems to have been exceptionally homely.
The
> man who perhaps projected such ideal beauty onto Haze was her stepfather.
> In the case of Hazel, her father --who is also uncommonly homely-- is
heavy
> with the consciousness of her physical limitations.
>
> Regarding the narrators of Proust and Nabokov: A superficial reading of
> Lolita or Ada may lead lead to the mistaken identification of the
repellant
> narrators with the author--and to giving up on the books in disgust early
> on. But Nabokov subtly distingushes and distances himself from Humbert
> Humbert and Van Veen. In the Proust novel the narrator behaves beastly and
> remorselessly to his lovers, and reveals himself to be subject to
> preposterous social prejudices, even as he denys having any, but in
> Proust's case I could find no ironic distinction drawn between author and
> narrator. Eeyew, n'est-ce pas? How serious a flaw is this? --Grace Paley's
> response to a complaint about the obnoxious aspect of Marcel was, Well at
> last here is an author who writes truthfully about himself--and you don't
> like him!
>
> Regarding Shade, the poet: Brian Boyd is emphatic that Shade's Pale Fire
is
> major stuff. Certainly Nabokov's Shade's Pale Fire is a masterpiece, but I
> find the author behind the author to be winking or smiling through the
> lines, some of which have an apparently unconsciously droll --even if
> simultaneously tragic-- ring, or at least a parodic character; homely
lines
> of a homely author. For example: a few lines after the extraordinarily
> evocative line 57 "The phantom of my little daughter's swing," there is
> "TV's huge paperclip"; line 76-78 "certain words...such as 'bad heart'
> always to him refer, And 'cancer of the pancreas' to her" (true and
> touching, but gulptious); and Nabokov's arch lines (beginning with 295)
> that introduce the theme of Hazel's unattractiveness in the eyes of her
> parents: "At first we'd smile and say: All little girls are plump'"
> ...."'That's the awkward age.'" ..."....'Less starch, more fruit!'" ...
> "...that nice frail roommate, now a nun" ..."almost fetching". These
sad,
> laughable, impish lines, and John Shade's closeup focus on his daughter's
> physical defects, her "swollen feet" and "psoriatic fingernails," (355)
and
> his readiness to share these minutae with the world, inform the reader
that
> for Shade this unattractiveness is integrally and inevitably linked to
> unhappiness, Hazel's and his own. Does he ever inquire or --like David
> Morris-- wonder if Hazel's misery might derive from any cause or causes
> other than her bodily appearance? "She'd criticize Ferociously our
> projects" (352), but I don't think Shade ever took the hint.
>
> Re what David Morris was missing in Ada: There is at least the tragedy of
> Ada's half-sister who suffers the karmic consequences of Van's and Ada's
> passion.
>
> Re <<I think in many ways the *idea* of PF is more attractive than the
> actual novel itself.>> Here is a general idea: Brian Boyd remarked
> somewhere I think something to the effect that no writer repays careful
> reading more than Nabokov. Thank you Brian Boyd. The "actual novel itself"
> is a work of great depth and mysterious beauty.
>
> Mondegreen
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3381
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.