-------- Original Message --------
Concerning Nabokov's own words on Pale Fire, I think it is important to
consider the fact he made
(at least) three statements on his intentions:
1. Mentioning 'the day on which Kinbote committed suicide (and he
certainly did after putting the
last touches to his edition to the poem)' to Alfred Appel Jr. in
Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary
Literature (1967)
As well as the two other statements discussed previously:
2. ‘I wonder if any reader will notice... that the nasty commentator is
not an ex-king and not even
Dr. Kinbote, but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman’ from his
diary in 1962
3. The insertion, and subsequent deletion, of poetry attributed to John
Shade in Nabokov's draft of
his revised Speak, Memory, which has used as evidence for the Shadean
school of interpretation,
from a similar time period.
These statements contradict each other, if Kinbote indeed is real
enough to be 'the nasty
commentator' and commit suicide, John Shade could not have constructed
him, which would be
the logical conclusion if Shade has constructed the index, as
indiciated by the Nabokov's insertion
to Speak, Memory. Thus, we are left with two main options as to the
meaning of this shift in
interpretation (interpretation, I would stress, is the key word here.
There is no correct 'solution' to
the novel, as it is not an empirical problem but a work of art, only
interpretations).
Firstly, Nabokov may have had a Boydian change of mind about the
intricacies of Pale Fire, and
decided to join the emerging Shadeans. I believe the dates do not match
up for this, which leads
me to a second conclusion: Nabokov had intended for the novel to be
re-read and scanned for
clues (hence the hypertextual format of the text), and probably had a
few psuedo-solutions for
the reader to find (most likely that Kinbote was Botkin), but then the
novel showed hidden depths
that Nabokov had not considered, which led to these contradictory
statements.
The fact that Pale Fire veered out of Nabokov's control is not
undesirable, however, as it has
allowed the novel to remain exciting and relevant to this day, with new
theories being developed
regularly, even if one will inevitably disagree with at least half of
them.
Thus, I would advise with taking Nabokov's words on 'solutions' to Pale
Fire with a pinch of salt,
since the novel has arguably developed into a more organic novel, than
the sterile artifact it would
have become if Nabokov's statements would have become canon.
Best,
Simon Rowberry