Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3502 Pale Fire Canto 4
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3502
>
> pynchon-l-digest Sunday, August 24 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3502
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:50:43 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Kyllo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org>
> >
> >
> > >pg 76
> > >"Coriolanus Lane" (where Charles Xavier lives while slumming at the
> > lectern
> > >of Zembla U):
> >
> >
> > and this is where we learn the King's middle name ; Charles Xavier ie
> > Charles X. One of several references to exiled or insane kings.
Charles
> > X
> > of France, before coming to the throne, was exiled from the outbreak of
> > the
> > French Revolution until the restoration in 1814. He became King in
1824,
> > but abdicated in 1829 and died in Illyria
> >
> >
> > James
> >
>
> Also:
>
> Charles IX of Sweden, who was known as Karl IX, as in "Teach,
Karlik!"(76).
>
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IX_of_Sweden
>
> Charles XVI Gustav of Sweden, in whose name one can almost make out
Charles
> XaVIer Vseslav, and who must have been a prince at the time of VN's
writing
> PF.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_XVI_Gustav_of_Sweden
>
> Jasp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 23 Aug 2003 09:22:08 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 10:30, Jasper Fidget wrote:
> > C.1-4
> > pg 73
> > "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> > although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
>
> And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> foreshadowing.
>
> (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
>
> P
>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:10:15 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> >> C.1-4
> >> pg 73
> >> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> >> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
>
> on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> > bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> > foreshadowing.
> >
> > (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
>
> I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
Kinbote's
> very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to "irresponsible
> embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text. There's no
> mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example, and Kinbote
> misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of Shade's
> self-characterising fancy.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 23 Aug 2003 23:14:23 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 19:10, jbor wrote:
> > >> C.1-4
> > >> pg 73
> > >> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> > >> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
> >
> > on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
> >
> > > And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> > > bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> > > foreshadowing.
> > >
> > > (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
> >
> > I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
>
>
> And Shade was conclusively dead when he said "one night I died" ((682)
>
> and "I did know that I had crossed/The border."(699-700)
>
>
> Kinbote's
> > very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to
"irresponsible
> > embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text.
>
> Yes, this is pretty conclusive. If CK misinterprets the text as often as
> RJ does then surely the bird is dead. (joke)
>
>
> There's no
> > mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example,
>
> K is "visualizing" how such a scene might have appeared. Perhaps he had
> at some point seen S pick up a stunned bird (not the particular bird of
> the poem naturally) or more likely had a past incident described to him.
> Birds' knocking themselves unconscious, then flying away a few moments
> later no worse for wear isn't an uncommon thing. I remember the first
> time I saw this as a very young child. I certainly assumed the seemingly
> lifeless thing was dead and (contra K) had no inclination to pick it up.
> It's rapid accent a minute or two later into the blue isn't something
> one forgets.
>
> Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
>
>
> and Kinbote
> > misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> > on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of Shade's
> > self-characterising fancy.
>
>
> Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> lived or died is indeterminate. (like so much else in the novel) But
> survival for the bird and for Shade (up until the final moment) makes as
> much sense as anything.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:01:02 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 24/8/03 1:14 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> > lived or died is indeterminate.
>
> Well, "slain" = dead. Whether or not the bird is imaginary is irrelevant.
>
> None of the hypothetical explanations -- all of them potentially valid
> reasons why Kinbote might have reconstituted the opening line as "a
waxwing
> *stunned*" rather than one "slain" -- are indicated or supported by the
> text. Kinbote doesn't just fabricate Zembla in the commentary, he
fabricates
> a whole lot of stuff, not least of which is the extent of reciprocality
and
> intimacy in his relationship with Shade.
>
> I agree with you that the referent for the poem's opening conceit might be
> Shade's near-death experience at the Crashaw Club. But the point is that
> Kinbote's interpretation of these lines is both inaccurate and an
> embellishment on Shade's text. In my opinion, that is.
>
> best
>
>
> >>>> C.1-4
> >>>> pg 73
> >>>> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> >>>> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
> >>
> >> on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
> >>
> >>> And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> >>> bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> >>> foreshadowing.
> >>>
> >>> (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
> >>
> >> I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
> >
> >
> > And Shade was conclusively dead when he said "one night I died" ((682)
> >
> > and "I did know that I had crossed/The border."(699-700)
> >
> >
> > Kinbote's
> >> very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to
"irresponsible
> >> embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text.
> >
> > Yes, this is pretty conclusive. If CK misinterprets the text as often as
> > RJ does then surely the bird is dead. (joke)
> >
> >
> > There's no
> >> mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example,
> >
> > K is "visualizing" how such a scene might have appeared. Perhaps he had
> > at some point seen S pick up a stunned bird (not the particular bird of
> > the poem naturally) or more likely had a past incident described to him.
> > Birds' knocking themselves unconscious, then flying away a few moments
> > later no worse for wear isn't an uncommon thing. I remember the first
> > time I saw this as a very young child. I certainly assumed the seemingly
> > lifeless thing was dead and (contra K) had no inclination to pick it up.
> > It's rapid accent a minute or two later into the blue isn't something
> > one forgets.
> >
> > Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> > that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> > something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
> >
> >
> > and Kinbote
> >> misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> >> on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of
Shade's
> >> self-characterising fancy.
> >
> >
> > Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> > lived or died is indeterminate. (like so much else in the novel) But
> > survival for the bird and for Shade (up until the final moment) makes as
> > much sense as anything.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:40:18 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 24/8/03 1:14 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> > that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> > something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
>
> I agree with this. I don't think that Kinbote is *deliberately* distorting
> Shade's thoughts or lying; I do think that, in his haste to find and
> elaborate on references to Charles the Beloved and Zembla in the poem, he
> accidentally misses or misinterprets many of the literal references, and
> some of the structural and thematic technicalities, which are evident.
>
> Like the inclusion of the sentence about the "very loud amusement park
right
> in front of my lodgings" on the first page of the Preface, by way of
> Kinbote's unintentional misreading of the bird's fate in this first note
> Nabokov foregrounds for the reader that something is askew, that there are
> rather large gaps between what Shade intended the poem to mean and what
> Kinbote thinks or decides it means.
>
> That's the way I read it, anyway.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:17:34 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 23/8/03 12:30 AM, Jasper Fidget wrote:
>
> > pg 81
> > "control exercised upon my poet by a domestic censor and God knows whom
> > else": K again implies that Sybil has coerced her husband into removing
> > Zembla references from his poem. The "God knows whom else" is
interesting,
> > though -- what might K be thinking of?
>
> I think it goes back to Kinbote's suspicion, mentioned in the previous
> paragraph, that "his colleagues", as well as Sybil, might have given Shade
> "advice" about what to put into and leave out of the poem. Partly it
> confirms Kinbote's paranoia about Hurley and the other academics at
> Wordsmith continually bad-mouthing him and undermining him, but it's also
> his way of justifying to himself and the reader the way in which Shade was
> convinced or coerced to "deliberately and drastically drain [...] every
> trace of the material" relating to Zembla and Charles the Beloved which
> Kinbote had "contributed" to the composition.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3502
> ********************************
>
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3502
>
> pynchon-l-digest Sunday, August 24 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3502
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:50:43 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <jasper@hatguild.org>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Kyllo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jasper Fidget <jasper@hatguild.org>
> >
> >
> > >pg 76
> > >"Coriolanus Lane" (where Charles Xavier lives while slumming at the
> > lectern
> > >of Zembla U):
> >
> >
> > and this is where we learn the King's middle name ; Charles Xavier ie
> > Charles X. One of several references to exiled or insane kings.
Charles
> > X
> > of France, before coming to the throne, was exiled from the outbreak of
> > the
> > French Revolution until the restoration in 1814. He became King in
1824,
> > but abdicated in 1829 and died in Illyria
> >
> >
> > James
> >
>
> Also:
>
> Charles IX of Sweden, who was known as Karl IX, as in "Teach,
Karlik!"(76).
>
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IX_of_Sweden
>
> Charles XVI Gustav of Sweden, in whose name one can almost make out
Charles
> XaVIer Vseslav, and who must have been a prince at the time of VN's
writing
> PF.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_XVI_Gustav_of_Sweden
>
> Jasp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 23 Aug 2003 09:22:08 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 10:30, Jasper Fidget wrote:
> > C.1-4
> > pg 73
> > "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> > although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
>
> And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> foreshadowing.
>
> (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
>
> P
>
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:10:15 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> >> C.1-4
> >> pg 73
> >> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> >> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
>
> on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> > bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> > foreshadowing.
> >
> > (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
>
> I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
Kinbote's
> very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to "irresponsible
> embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text. There's no
> mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example, and Kinbote
> misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of Shade's
> self-characterising fancy.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 23 Aug 2003 23:14:23 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 19:10, jbor wrote:
> > >> C.1-4
> > >> pg 73
> > >> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> > >> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
> >
> > on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
> >
> > > And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> > > bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> > > foreshadowing.
> > >
> > > (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
> >
> > I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
>
>
> And Shade was conclusively dead when he said "one night I died" ((682)
>
> and "I did know that I had crossed/The border."(699-700)
>
>
> Kinbote's
> > very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to
"irresponsible
> > embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text.
>
> Yes, this is pretty conclusive. If CK misinterprets the text as often as
> RJ does then surely the bird is dead. (joke)
>
>
> There's no
> > mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example,
>
> K is "visualizing" how such a scene might have appeared. Perhaps he had
> at some point seen S pick up a stunned bird (not the particular bird of
> the poem naturally) or more likely had a past incident described to him.
> Birds' knocking themselves unconscious, then flying away a few moments
> later no worse for wear isn't an uncommon thing. I remember the first
> time I saw this as a very young child. I certainly assumed the seemingly
> lifeless thing was dead and (contra K) had no inclination to pick it up.
> It's rapid accent a minute or two later into the blue isn't something
> one forgets.
>
> Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
>
>
> and Kinbote
> > misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> > on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of Shade's
> > self-characterising fancy.
>
>
> Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> lived or died is indeterminate. (like so much else in the novel) But
> survival for the bird and for Shade (up until the final moment) makes as
> much sense as anything.
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:01:02 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 24/8/03 1:14 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> > lived or died is indeterminate.
>
> Well, "slain" = dead. Whether or not the bird is imaginary is irrelevant.
>
> None of the hypothetical explanations -- all of them potentially valid
> reasons why Kinbote might have reconstituted the opening line as "a
waxwing
> *stunned*" rather than one "slain" -- are indicated or supported by the
> text. Kinbote doesn't just fabricate Zembla in the commentary, he
fabricates
> a whole lot of stuff, not least of which is the extent of reciprocality
and
> intimacy in his relationship with Shade.
>
> I agree with you that the referent for the poem's opening conceit might be
> Shade's near-death experience at the Crashaw Club. But the point is that
> Kinbote's interpretation of these lines is both inaccurate and an
> embellishment on Shade's text. In my opinion, that is.
>
> best
>
>
> >>>> C.1-4
> >>>> pg 73
> >>>> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
> >>>> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
> >>
> >> on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
> >>
> >>> And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
> >>> bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
> >>> foreshadowing.
> >>>
> >>> (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
> >>
> >> I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
> >
> >
> > And Shade was conclusively dead when he said "one night I died" ((682)
> >
> > and "I did know that I had crossed/The border."(699-700)
> >
> >
> > Kinbote's
> >> very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to
"irresponsible
> >> embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text.
> >
> > Yes, this is pretty conclusive. If CK misinterprets the text as often as
> > RJ does then surely the bird is dead. (joke)
> >
> >
> > There's no
> >> mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example,
> >
> > K is "visualizing" how such a scene might have appeared. Perhaps he had
> > at some point seen S pick up a stunned bird (not the particular bird of
> > the poem naturally) or more likely had a past incident described to him.
> > Birds' knocking themselves unconscious, then flying away a few moments
> > later no worse for wear isn't an uncommon thing. I remember the first
> > time I saw this as a very young child. I certainly assumed the seemingly
> > lifeless thing was dead and (contra K) had no inclination to pick it up.
> > It's rapid accent a minute or two later into the blue isn't something
> > one forgets.
> >
> > Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> > that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> > something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
> >
> >
> > and Kinbote
> >> misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on,
flew
> >> on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of
Shade's
> >> self-characterising fancy.
> >
> >
> > Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> > lived or died is indeterminate. (like so much else in the novel) But
> > survival for the bird and for Shade (up until the final moment) makes as
> > much sense as anything.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:40:18 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 24/8/03 1:14 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > Why should K deliberately distort S's thought? Seems to me most likely
> > that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> > something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
>
> I agree with this. I don't think that Kinbote is *deliberately* distorting
> Shade's thoughts or lying; I do think that, in his haste to find and
> elaborate on references to Charles the Beloved and Zembla in the poem, he
> accidentally misses or misinterprets many of the literal references, and
> some of the structural and thematic technicalities, which are evident.
>
> Like the inclusion of the sentence about the "very loud amusement park
right
> in front of my lodgings" on the first page of the Preface, by way of
> Kinbote's unintentional misreading of the bird's fate in this first note
> Nabokov foregrounds for the reader that something is askew, that there are
> rather large gaps between what Shade intended the poem to mean and what
> Kinbote thinks or decides it means.
>
> That's the way I read it, anyway.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:17:34 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42
>
> on 23/8/03 12:30 AM, Jasper Fidget wrote:
>
> > pg 81
> > "control exercised upon my poet by a domestic censor and God knows whom
> > else": K again implies that Sybil has coerced her husband into removing
> > Zembla references from his poem. The "God knows whom else" is
interesting,
> > though -- what might K be thinking of?
>
> I think it goes back to Kinbote's suspicion, mentioned in the previous
> paragraph, that "his colleagues", as well as Sybil, might have given Shade
> "advice" about what to put into and leave out of the poem. Partly it
> confirms Kinbote's paranoia about Hurley and the other academics at
> Wordsmith continually bad-mouthing him and undermining him, but it's also
> his way of justifying to himself and the reader the way in which Shade was
> convinced or coerced to "deliberately and drastically drain [...] every
> trace of the material" relating to Zembla and Charles the Beloved which
> Kinbote had "contributed" to the composition.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3502
> ********************************
>