I came too late to yesterday's debate. I sent in two quick
replies to the postings that had been directly addressed to me but when I
sat down to read the lot I felt stimulated enough to write more comments. After
hesitating about the process of posting a queue of mails to our
now over-burdened Editor, I opted for a kind of "omnibus". I
must appologize in advance for the pretentiousness that seems
to be hiding in such a project. Please, read me as if I'd been
the the husband who announces that, at home, he is
always the one to have the last word.
Samuel Beckett's "Texts for Nothing" (
particularly number 6) make me think about how would Kinbote's
unwritten Cedarn stream of consciousness be - and if they would
also be pouring out from the various parts of his body and self,
as shown in Beckett's very horizontal text.
Portuguese poet
Fernando Pessoa wrote as Alberto Caeiro, Ricardo Reis (etc). His "heteronym"
Álvaro de Campos wrote: "Fernando Pessoa, strictly speaking, doesn't
exist" so he, perhaps, might also have achieved "his own
cancellation" ( Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet,
Penguin Books, 2002). In fact, the outcome was the opposite to
Shade's "cancellation"....
Andrew Brown observed
that, for him, the versipel is not "the conclusion.It sums up the
series - the object in Shade's hand appears to change, so he calls it a
versipel." I agree with that, but I don't consider Jerry
Friedman's comment as intentionally "conclusive" nor do I
find any blatant contradiction with AB's words at this
point. The image of "being groomed,shod and fed" (lying behind
shoehorn,comb,spoon) was apparently created by AB himself and, actually, I
like his specifications very much.
How interesting, there is a link between "mawkish" and Middle
English "mawke/ maggot"! I'm not sure, insectwise, if maggots and
botfly larvae apply to the same kind of "worm". The first, as in
"Hamlet", prove the continuity of the life force in general; the second, as
an analogy, seem to be more specifically inclined?
Jerry Friedman wrote:
"A Freudian origin for Shade's MPD would be like the Freudian story Humbert
tells about the origin of his pedophilia, usually said to be a
parody..." Once again, I agree with him.
Or... do I,
really ? He seems to admit Shade's MPD as necessary to the plot, and I
don't. Even if Shade is Kinbote and has invented Botkin and Gradus,
MPD is not the only possible interpretation. Neither do I think we must rely on
the RLS Dr.Jekyll& Hyde story as VN's chief source of
inspiration.
Carolyn wrote about
"her arsenal". Who shall be our sans-serifical Jack Grey, then ? ( here
I bring up S.K-B's joke some postings ago).
She
mentioned that the 'OED confirmed my suspicion. "Jesuitical" means
deceitful and cunning. In the program Father Fischer was vin-dicated, but I had
another bit of evidence in my arsenal...' How amazing. I think
this item must have been a Shadean contribution (not Kinbote's!),
quite like the true story in Simon Winchester's book "The
Professor and the Madman: A tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the
Oxford English Dictionary". She considers that " Sybil, Hazel and Shade
are the three main characters" and not Gradus, Kinbote and Shade. And
yet, if PF bears any similarity with RLS' J&H, there would be no
feminine "main characters" at all, would there?
Tiffany
DeRewall calls our attention that "Shade is a Pope scholar,
and Kinbote is a king from Zembla, a romanticized Utopia derived from Pope's
"Essay on Man." Zembla's existence relies upon Shade's creation of it, as
Kinbote notes(...) When Kinbote grasps the poem at Shade's
"assassination," he quotes Matthew Arnold's The Scholar Gypsy," a
poem about a scholar traveling through the mountains..." A very
elegant demonstration and wonderful interconnections, but I don't see
them proving that Shade is Kinbote. Rather they might serve to show
that Kinbote loved Shade to the point of identifying with him and shaping
his infantile experiences as his adventures in Pope's Zembla. To
this came the other poets, like Matthew Arnold, who added a special
color to the creation. A queenly "blend", like the place name "Utana"?
Sergei Soloviev's
contribution was quite precious to me, a very frank testimony about
the hardships of itinerant immigrant life. When he wrote: "The
difference between Shade and Kinbote lies not in the dimension of psychology and
personality but in the style and cultural references" his conclusion seemed
to be similar to my own ( which led me to abandon C.K's theory, at long
last) but, unlike my vague intuition, S.Soloviev's is grounded on his
experience.
He concluded with: "essentially my argument
is that the conjecture of the unique split personality doesn't fit with the
process of artistic discovery of America by Nabokov, which, to my opinion, can
be seen in the sequence of his novels, and if that conjecture would be true,
most of the colours and shades that make so beautiful this novel would
annihilate each other." I don't see Shade as being as spiritual
as S.S does ( and Andrew Brown, R.Rorty, B.Boyd...), nor do
I place Shade among the most representative American poets, though ( Still,
I don't side with Kinbote's rather contradictory, delusional and
snobbish assessment of Shade as "Appalachian"... But I get
SS's point and I admire him for it.
Matthew Roth's
contributions and the issues he raised are quite difficult.
In my opinion we have been arguing
round and round because we transformed the "multiple personality disorder" into
an axiom, without trying to see the matter from other
different angles. For example, if (if) we
followed plain common-sense and accepted that Shade and Kinbote are
different people, we might then consider his poem in "isolation", ie: read
it for the poem it is. Consequently all the other information
concerning Kinbote's New Wye, Shade's or Sybil's
words, the Zemblan department, maps and language would
become part of another character's invention, someone who stole Shade's
manuscript and created an entire novel around it. Since we would
know nothing about Shade's life, except what he wrote down in his poem (
and he might also have invented bit and pieces in it about Sibil, Hazel and
Aunt Maud) we would have to mistrust the commentator's ( Kinbote or
Botkin...) information all the time. Just as Shade might have invented part
of his biography, the commentator could have described "true facts"
interspersed with his delusional constructions. If he were a psychotic his
homosexuality would either be explained using Freud's
theories on "paranoia and homosexuality", or they would be part of our
Author's parody of Freud's book about the case of President Schreber, even
with bits of clinical material on child-abuse.
Jansy