Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3611 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:39:51 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <fakename@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Summary Line 347
>
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Scott Badger
> >
> > Line 347: old barn
> >
>
> >
> > The first night is a wash-out, the pyrotechnics of a storm overwhelm
> > anything the ghost might produce. Hazel fails to find a companion for
the
> > second visit, but decides, despite her parents attempts to stop her, to
go
> > it alone. Only nine minutes after settling in, she hears "scrappy and
> > scrabbly sounds". Six minutes later, a "roundlet of pale light" appears,
> > inviting play it would seem. Then, "gone". Twelve minutes more, and it
> > returns. The "luminous circlet" assures Hazel that it is not a
> > will-of-the-wisp, or trickster, but that "it" *is* dead. In the process,
> > Hazel and the apparition work out a crude means of communication on the
> > wall
> > of the barn, a "keyboard of dry wood"(line 649). With great effort and
> > persistence, Hazel records "a short line of simple letter-groups".
Later,
> > despite "abominable" headaches, and with "endless" effort and "infinite
> > patience and disgust", Kinbote applies himself (to the point, even, of
> > distraction from his more appealing night-games) to cracking the code.
>
>
> Good notes, Scott, thanks. I found Boyd's Maud's ghost theory
interesting,
> but I think the light is either a hoax or an accident. On p. 187: "[Jane]
> tells me she suggested that the White twins (nice fraternity boys accepted
> by the Shades) would come [with Hazel to the barn] instead. But Hazel
flat
> out refused this new arrangement." The word "twins" alone should raise an
> eyebrow here. Part of the twins pattern involves a parallel between
> something seen and something else hidden. What if the twins *do* go to
the
> barn. What if they bring a flashlight and decide to play a trick on poor
> Hazel...?
>
> On p. 188, after some encoded communication between Hazel and the light,
the
> light's "jumps would get more and more listless" [as the twin with the
> flashlight grew weary of the labor of the joke], and then "the roundlet
went
> limp like a tired child and finally crawled into a chink" [as it became
the
> other twin's turn with the flashlight] "out of which it suddenly flew with
> extravagant brio and started to spin around the walls in its eagerness to
> resume the game" [with the fresh energy of the rested White twin].
>
> Another possibility is that the light is the product of car headlights
from
> the nearby highway shining through a crack in the barn wall (as a moving
> light will seem to hover on a wall then abruptly drop down as the vehicle
> passes), which went unnoticed on the first night because of the electric
> storm (187) and on the third night perhaps because Sybil or John obscured
> the crack in the wall.
>
> Don't call me Occam, but either seems a more plausible explanation, and
fits
> into the artifact/arbitrary interpretation theme. Hazel just applies her
> own system of meaning onto what she sees the light doing, and there's no
> evidence it had any notion of her rules.
>
> Jasper
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:44:01 -0400
> From: "Scott Badger" <lupine@ncia.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Summary Line 347
>
> Jasper:
> > I found Boyd's Maud's ghost theory interesting, but I think the light
> > is either a hoax or an accident.
>
> There sure is a lot of funny stuff going on in this commentary. We don't
> even know what to believe of the accounting, selectively and creatively
> filtered, as it is, through *both* Jane P. (albeit, a pillar of
> respectability...) and Kinbote, let alone what to make of the reported
> events. And even if we were to accept the presence of a ghost, its
identity
> comes into serious question. I do like your White twins conjecture though,
I
> had wondered about them myself. And regarding your headlights theory,
> Kinbote report that "there were long pauses and 'scratches and scrapings'
> again, and returns of the luminous circlet", which might be the crunching
> sound tires make on a dirt road. Nevertheless, I find it hard to shake the
> feeling that Boyd is correct in his general notion that this book is
> haunted.
>
> How does Hetzner tie into all this?
>
> > Hazel just applies her own system of meaning onto what she sees the
> > light doing, and there's no evidence it had any notion of her rules.
>
> A comment on literary criticism then?...
>
> BTW, apologies for my own less than ghost-like presence this past week. A
> young boy was lost in the woods nearby and the search lasted from Monday
to
> Friday.
>
>
> Scott Badger
>
" in the message body.
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:39:51 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <fakename@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Summary Line 347
>
> > From: owner-pynchon-l@waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l@waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Scott Badger
> >
> > Line 347: old barn
> >
>
> >
> > The first night is a wash-out, the pyrotechnics of a storm overwhelm
> > anything the ghost might produce. Hazel fails to find a companion for
the
> > second visit, but decides, despite her parents attempts to stop her, to
go
> > it alone. Only nine minutes after settling in, she hears "scrappy and
> > scrabbly sounds". Six minutes later, a "roundlet of pale light" appears,
> > inviting play it would seem. Then, "gone". Twelve minutes more, and it
> > returns. The "luminous circlet" assures Hazel that it is not a
> > will-of-the-wisp, or trickster, but that "it" *is* dead. In the process,
> > Hazel and the apparition work out a crude means of communication on the
> > wall
> > of the barn, a "keyboard of dry wood"(line 649). With great effort and
> > persistence, Hazel records "a short line of simple letter-groups".
Later,
> > despite "abominable" headaches, and with "endless" effort and "infinite
> > patience and disgust", Kinbote applies himself (to the point, even, of
> > distraction from his more appealing night-games) to cracking the code.
>
>
> Good notes, Scott, thanks. I found Boyd's Maud's ghost theory
interesting,
> but I think the light is either a hoax or an accident. On p. 187: "[Jane]
> tells me she suggested that the White twins (nice fraternity boys accepted
> by the Shades) would come [with Hazel to the barn] instead. But Hazel
flat
> out refused this new arrangement." The word "twins" alone should raise an
> eyebrow here. Part of the twins pattern involves a parallel between
> something seen and something else hidden. What if the twins *do* go to
the
> barn. What if they bring a flashlight and decide to play a trick on poor
> Hazel...?
>
> On p. 188, after some encoded communication between Hazel and the light,
the
> light's "jumps would get more and more listless" [as the twin with the
> flashlight grew weary of the labor of the joke], and then "the roundlet
went
> limp like a tired child and finally crawled into a chink" [as it became
the
> other twin's turn with the flashlight] "out of which it suddenly flew with
> extravagant brio and started to spin around the walls in its eagerness to
> resume the game" [with the fresh energy of the rested White twin].
>
> Another possibility is that the light is the product of car headlights
from
> the nearby highway shining through a crack in the barn wall (as a moving
> light will seem to hover on a wall then abruptly drop down as the vehicle
> passes), which went unnoticed on the first night because of the electric
> storm (187) and on the third night perhaps because Sybil or John obscured
> the crack in the wall.
>
> Don't call me Occam, but either seems a more plausible explanation, and
fits
> into the artifact/arbitrary interpretation theme. Hazel just applies her
> own system of meaning onto what she sees the light doing, and there's no
> evidence it had any notion of her rules.
>
> Jasper
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:44:01 -0400
> From: "Scott Badger" <lupine@ncia.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF: Summary Line 347
>
> Jasper:
> > I found Boyd's Maud's ghost theory interesting, but I think the light
> > is either a hoax or an accident.
>
> There sure is a lot of funny stuff going on in this commentary. We don't
> even know what to believe of the accounting, selectively and creatively
> filtered, as it is, through *both* Jane P. (albeit, a pillar of
> respectability...) and Kinbote, let alone what to make of the reported
> events. And even if we were to accept the presence of a ghost, its
identity
> comes into serious question. I do like your White twins conjecture though,
I
> had wondered about them myself. And regarding your headlights theory,
> Kinbote report that "there were long pauses and 'scratches and scrapings'
> again, and returns of the luminous circlet", which might be the crunching
> sound tires make on a dirt road. Nevertheless, I find it hard to shake the
> feeling that Boyd is correct in his general notion that this book is
> haunted.
>
> How does Hetzner tie into all this?
>
> > Hazel just applies her own system of meaning onto what she sees the
> > light doing, and there's no evidence it had any notion of her rules.
>
> A comment on literary criticism then?...
>
> BTW, apologies for my own less than ghost-like presence this past week. A
> young boy was lost in the woods nearby and the search lasted from Monday
to
> Friday.
>
>
> Scott Badger
>
" in the message body.