EDNote: I'm going to ask that responses to Maureen Muller go directly
to
her, off-list. I'm sure that there are some kindly folks who
could give
her some gentle nudges in a few plausible directions . . . and perhaps
a
few bibliographic suggestions that might not be listed on the major
resources. ~SB
Subject:Pale Fire Help
From:"Maureen Muller" <maureenellenmuller@gmail.com>
Date:Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:36:26 -0500
To:NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu
All,
I'm trying to come up with a thesis idea and Nabokov is the author I am
most familiar with, so I'm using him. I read this list serv frequently
but I've never contributed, I'm a nabokov lover, my home town is PSU
where his original manuscripts are held in the Pattee Library. I have a
few ideas. I'm using Pale Fire, I know thats ambitious. Anyway, wanted
to argue that Nabokov's use of dual authorship in PF preceeds the
possibility of the living novel, the ability for a reader to
participate in the text, to add or alter or edit, the possibility of
the collective artist. To eliminate the idea that a work of fiction has
to be derived from a single author. With the advent of facebook,
bloggers, wikipedia etc, I was thinking this might be arguable but its
also a stretch I'm sure. VN breaking the linear style of the novel
allows us the possibility of a work of art not necessarily possessing a
beginning a middle or an end. In lit theory 101, that freshmen
undergrad class, they teach you that Aristotle's take on lit was that
it was organic, had a defined beginning, middle and end and the parts
interacted with eachother and thus it was literature. What if this
isn't true? Is this possible that I can argue Nabokov's multiple
authorship and nonlinear structure of the book is a gateway to the
living novel, (as I am calling it). I would compare the dynamic
interaction between Shade and Kinbote's work and how that interaction
makes the book interesting. Or is this too much? If it is, can somebody
please give me some direction or ideas?
v/r,
Maureen