I was confused, as perhaps other readers were, on how point 3 supported a Shadean reading.  To understand one needs the actual deleted quote, which I trust some may find useful:

"As John Shade says somewhere:

Nobody will heed my index,

I suppose,

But through it a gentle wind ex

Ponto blows."

~c


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@utk.edu> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [NABOKV-L] from Ron Rosenbaum re VN's own words about the narrator]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:22:37 -0700
From: Simon Rowberry <s.p.rowberry@WINCHESTER.AC.UK>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
CC: Simon Rowberry <s.p.rowberry@WINCHESTER.AC.UK>

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

Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.


Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.