Subject
: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "jansy mello" <jansy@zaz.com.br>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (59
lines) ------------------
> One could also be reminded of French artist Duchamp´s words: " It is
always
> the other who dies". ( I don´t have the correct words in French by me now)
>
>
> -----Mensagem Original-----
> De: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> Para: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Enviada em: Domingo, 26 de Janeiro de 2003 06:03
> Assunto: Fw: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> > > finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by
the
> > > following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other
men
> > > die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds much
> > like
> > > Falter when he says to Sineusov:
> > >
> > > "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is
> mortal;
> > > you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not mortal.
> > Why?
> > > Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be
any
> > > man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a different
> way
> > > than you."
> > >
> > > Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the
> Posterior
> > > Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second
example
> > > isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the piffle
> and
> > > prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up
> Boyd's
> > > idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the
child
> > > Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from
> Pale
> > > Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a
further
> > > indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is indeed
> > > alive.
> > >
> > > The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are mentioned
> (as
> > > they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
> > passage
> > > a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person
> presently
> > > living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already
died.
> > > It's an interesting paradox.
> > >
> > > Apologies if this has been covered
> > >
> >
>
From: "jansy mello" <jansy@zaz.com.br>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (59
lines) ------------------
> One could also be reminded of French artist Duchamp´s words: " It is
always
> the other who dies". ( I don´t have the correct words in French by me now)
>
>
> -----Mensagem Original-----
> De: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> Para: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Enviada em: Domingo, 26 de Janeiro de 2003 06:03
> Assunto: Fw: Ultima Thule and Pale Fire
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brian Jobe" <brjobe@YAHOO.COM>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (29
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Spurred on by Prof. Boyd's "Magic of Artistic Discovery", I recently
> > > finished re-reading 'Ultima Thule' and 'Pale Fire' and was struck by
the
> > > following echo: In lines 213-214 Shade writes: "A syllogism: other
men
> > > die; but I /Am not another; therefore I'll not die," which sounds much
> > like
> > > Falter when he says to Sineusov:
> > >
> > > "I call your attention to the following curious catch: any man is
> mortal;
> > > you are a man; therefore, it is also possible that you are not mortal.
> > Why?
> > > Because a specified man (you or I) for that very reason ceases to be
any
> > > man. Yet both of us are indeed mortal, but I am mortal in a different
> way
> > > than you."
> > >
> > > Both are parodies of examples of logic used by Aristotle in the
> Posterior
> > > Analytics, I think. More to the point, I wonder if the second
example
> > > isn't very specifically the 'two or three words' 'amid all the piffle
> and
> > > prate' in which Falter inadvertently gives himself away. Taking up
> Boyd's
> > > idea that Falter's metamorphosis is an eerie transmutation of the
child
> > > Sineusov's wife was to have borne, I also wonder if the passage from
> Pale
> > > Fire points toward a similar metamorphosis in Shade, and/or is a
further
> > > indication that his darling Hazel (or Aunt Maude?) somewhere is indeed
> > > alive.
> > >
> > > The parallel isn't exact, I know, but the two syllogisms are mentioned
> (as
> > > they would be) amidst a discussion of the afterlife, and yet in each
> > passage
> > > a claim for a kind of 'undying' immortality is made by a person
> presently
> > > living, who may well be inspired by another person who has already
died.
> > > It's an interesting paradox.
> > >
> > > Apologies if this has been covered
> > >
> >
>