'Having followed with fascination the intricate discussion of who
invented whom, and gleaned some intriguing peripheral details along the
way, I cannot resist, with malice toward none, quoing the equine mouth.
When the speculation first began many years ago, I asked my father,
during
a visit from Monza to Montreux, whether such theories might have any
substance. He laughed a characteristic, friendly laugh and said of
course
not -- it would be just as implausible to say Shade and Kinbote had
invented each other.'
See Escher's lithograph "Drawing Hands", which is so famous I
may not need to mention <http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/escher/drawing_hands.jpg>.
I can name two people who have found in it what you call "a
translucing othersense and otherworld". (Someone I know, and
Douglas R. Hofstadter in /Godel, Escher, Bach/ [1].) I can't
name any literary artist who has constructed an analogous
story with the same mathematical beauty.
This not to say that I believe for a second S. invented K., K.
invented S., or they invented each other.
'For my part, I expect an e-posting any day suggesting
both were invented by Pnin. Why, Mr. Il'yin et al., must anyone other
than
the author have perforce invented anyone, even witin the macrocosm of
the
book? And why not, while we're at it, override the Bogomil catharses by
positing that both God and the Devil were invented by Man, and throw in
the Earth and the Universe for good measure? Of course such a
Weltanschauung would bear a separate, obsolescent buzzname, as we all
know.'
'It is possible, of course, that Father might have perused the more
brilliant dovody [Russ: "arguments" - DBJ], rubbed his chin between
thumb
and index, then perhaps pursed his lips as he sometimes did in mock
chagrin, and said "Maybe I didn't realize it and they're right."'
You repeated this paragraph in another posting. I find it a
remarkable image of a man who was ordinarily, in print, so
certain of the right interpretation of his writing. Would he
really have said that seriously?
'But it remains dangerous to take VN's chance, or planted, clues at face
value. Many of his writings -- among them, in particular, he said, was
INVITATION TO A BEHEADING -- contain enigmas with no simple or single
explanations.'
We might hope or fear that /Pale Fire/ would have a key, in
view of Shade's comment about the "interdiction of dual solutions"
to chess problems (note to line 549). Perhaps your father was
going by contraries [2] here instead of giving a clue to be taken
at face value.
'In the case of PALE FIRE, I suggest paying particular
attention to the most poetic -- and Shakespearean -- sense of the word
"shade,"'
"An evanescent or unreal appearance"? (Merriam-Webster on line.)
I'm afraid I don't know whether Shakespeare used it in that sense.
'as well as to the surviving fragments of the unfinshed SOLUS REX,
which in large part represented the genesis of PALE FIRE and would have
been Father's last Russian novel had not, as he told me, inspiration
been
interrupted by emigration (from wartime France).'
Unfortunately, I got the impression that I might have understood
it if it had been finished, but probably I would have failed.
'A translucing othersense
and otherworld (concepts understood in depth by some, uncomprehended and
used unidimensionally by others) are perhaps the most entrancing,
enchanting and exciting traits of Nabokokv's work.'
You wouldn't be willing to name any names of critics of
Nabokov's work who have understood those concepts in depth,
or at least duodimensionally, would you?
At least I'm gratified that my interpretation goes in the
direction you consider central. Maybe the reason I like
/Pale Fire/ so much better than your father's other writings
is that it's the only one where I see that direction.
'Maybe a prerquisite for
reading him should be Eschewing Reduction to Pat and Flat 101.'
'DN'
There's a difficulty: you have to get the things that are
pat and flat (at least in hindsight) in order to see any
"gleams and glooms" [3]. For instance, you have to solve the
kind of puzzle that gave Kinbote headaches (or be told the
solution, in my case) to know that, by some magic, Aunt Maud's
aphasia continues when her speech no longer arises from her
damaged brain.
Some would argue that this attention to detail interferes with
the reception of translucences. In my imperfect reading of
/Lectures on Literature/, your father showed no sign of even
imagining such a possibility--he seemed convinced that the
more you understand overtly of great writing, the more you enjoy
and admire. (This assumption could be tested by well-paid
psychology professors using nominally compensated undergraduates.
[I wonder whether people's reaction to the assumption correlates
with their reaction to my proposal for a study.])
I think my point is that in the study of a writer who plants
clues, possibly mixed with chance clues and not necessarily to
be taken at face value, people who can accept the pat and flat
have a lot to contribute. Those intriguing peripheral details
you mentioned. It's to be hoped your father was right and
pedantry will not interfere with appreciation.
[1] Very different from Nabokov, but on my short list of books
in which I can imagine a "translucing othersense and otherworld".
I think it influenced my reading of /Pale Fire/. As I may have
mentioned, Hofstadter's religion is a lot like Shade's faint
hope.
[2] Paraphrasing Robert Frost's "West-running Brook", on my short
list of poems in which I can imagine a "translucing othersense
and otherworld".
[3] A phrase about ghost stories, either due to or about Henry
James. I can footnote it somewhat better if anyone wants.
Jerry Friedman
__________________________________________________
EDNote: There is an interview, in Strong Opinions and not at
my fingertips, in which VN tells an interviewer (a scholar, I believe)
that the suggestion he makes about a certain pattern was not in his
plan for the given work, and that it was either a chance event or a
product of unconscious inspiration, whithout which, he says, art and
its appreciation would not be worthwhile. Perhaps that resolves the
question somewhat? ~SB