[ ...a clumsy conspiracy,
with nonsensical details and a main plotter who not only knew nothing of
its real object but insisted on making inept moves that seemed to
preclude the slightest possibility of success. Yet out of those very
mistakes he unwittingly wove a web, in which a set of reciprocal blunders
on my part caused me to get involved and fulfill the destiny that was the
only aim of the plot.]LATH
J. Friedman:
...weak players often match mistake for mistake with unforeseen
results ("the winner is the player who makes the second-last mistake") and
"move" and "blunder" suggest chess, but I don't think there's any recognizable
move or tactic here.
J. Mello:.. The funny problem with LATH's sentence quoted above (
which became clearer to me after J.Friedman's message) derives from the
fact that there are no two weak players matching
mistake by mistake, only a narrator who
must be playing against himself ( what does a
"set of reciprocal blunders on my part" actually
mean?). Even if we abandon the idea of any chess move or
a conspiracy, this kind of "reciprocity" seems to be
very peculiar.
The "main plotter" himself is apparently quite a
blunderer too ( we are told that he (a)knew nothing about the real object of a
conspiracy; (b) hindered its success by inept moves; (c) he wove his
web unwittingily ...)
The word "conspiracy" seems to totally alter the
meaning of the word " a plot", "a plotter"... does it not?
(
and any "complot" must involve more than one)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
S K-Bootle answers
D.Zimmer: ...Is this some accepted meta-level of meta-narrative analysis where
the author/creator, VN, deliberately sets out to confuse the reader about which
of VN’s allusions are known or unknown to his creature-characters? This added
layer on top of teasing the reader with more direct allusions (searchable by the
patient-curious) and, to borrow from a current idiom, possible identity-thefts!
At least with the latter, we have His Master’s Voice speaking outside the
novel
Jerry Katsell:
Could “Disa” be another instance of Nabokov
transitorily, Alfred Hitchcock-like, peeking out from within PF and winking at
the reader to say “I’m really behind Shade’s poem and Kinbote’s commentary”?