A Reply to Matthew Roth’s Review of The Darker Shades of Pale Fire
I would like to thank Matthew Roth
for reviewing my book on NABOKV-L and recommending it. I certainly regret the few factual mistakes he points out and I thank him for bringing them to my attention.
They will be corrected if the book is reprinted. I also regret what is not a
mistake as such but seriously inaccurate phrasing, when I write that Kinbote’s
Zemblan tale was influenced by the poem, not the other way round. What I meant, of course, was that Kinbote’s tale was derived from his New Wye
surroundings, which puts it in a new light and forces us to question its
authenticity.
Although M. Roth’s review is globally
fair, I think he sometimes misrepresents my arguments slightly and makes them
appear as ill-founded when they are not. An example of this is his
comment on my reading of the first four lines of the poem:
“I found myself feeling incredulous
when I arrived at the author’s Sybil/Hazel theory, which appears to me to
abound with speculative leaps that are far less grounded than any of Boyd’s
proposals. An example: after citing the first four lines of the poem, Alladaye
prompts us to “imagine that the ‘I’ on lines 1 and 3 do not refer to Shade—or
not exclusively to him—but, in the contrapuntal (hence polyphonic) structure
of the poem, to Sybil as well. Sybil (the swallow) would then be the shadow of
the waxwing (John Shade) slain by the false azure in the windowpane” (164). But
nothing that I could see would prompt us to “imagine” such a scenario. I might
just as well perform the same experiment with Dr. Sutton as the “I.” After all,
he is a combination of two men (Shade! Kinbote!) and keeps popping up in odd
places all over both the poem and commentary. In short, I actually don’t mind
Alladaye’s playing with the text and coming up with his scenario, but I don’t
think it’s quite sporting to apply standards to the critique of others and then
ignore those same standards when working out one’s own theory.”
What M. Roth omits here, and I think
it makes a difference and invalidates any “Dr Sutton experiment”, is the fact
that this reinterpretation of the opening of the poem comes after I have introduced the ornithological connection between Sybil Shade née
Irondell (as in “hirondelle”, swallow) and a number of other birds in the text,
including the waxwing of the poem (another passerine bird). I do agree that,
presented as it is in the review, the whole interpretation looks totally groundless,
but if the reader takes some time to reread my pages (164-65), he will see that
it is linked to details that appear elsewhere in the text in connection to
Sybil – details one would be hard put to unearth to support a “Dr
Sutton reading”. It is this connection, linked to my "anamorphic reading" of the
novel, which prompts me to “superimpose”, as it were, John and Sybil Shade in my
interpretation and suggest that Sybil, the swallow, may be the “shadow of the
waxwing”.
M. Roth’s examination of this part
of my work is linked to the idea that my “theory” is speculative, probably more
so than the readings I criticize and depict as excessively speculative, and
that it would be more “sporting” if I practiced what I preach. I feel this
calls for a few answers as it is admittedly a crucial point in the discussion
of my work.
1) M. Roth evokes my analysis of B.
Boyd’s Vanessa demonstration in PFMAD and regards my claim that its logic can
sometimes be faulted as critical. I would like to make it clear, first, as I do
in my book a number of times, that I have nothing but admiration and respect
for B. Boyd, and find his book absolutely thrilling and brilliant. But if the
reader goes back to the pages where I conduct this analysis (125-27), and reads
the passages I select in PFMAD, I think he will see that the Vanessa demonstration,
stunning as it is, cannot hold if we do not willingly suspend our disbelief
here and there.
2) While advancing an ingenious argument supporting it, M. Roth expresses his lack of conviction regarding the Holbein connection which is central in my book. My question is: what about the textual evidence given in Chapter 8? I do not see it as “speculative”. My critic writes very nicely that “once one's eyes have been Nabokolized, Pale Fire shows up everywhere”, and this could be taken as an answer to what I have just written: if one author is likely to lead you to interpretive delusion, it is Nabokov. Yet I do not think I am deluded, because I do not think I am “inventing” anything here. Textual coincidences seem rather too numerous for that, and two other sets of clues (the theme of ambassadors which runs through the novel and the link between Pale Fire and the notion of anamorphosis) support this connection as well. But I am biased of course, so the best I can do, now that the debate is open, is invite prospective readers to express their views regarding the textual validity of this connection.
3) In fact, the point I really want to make in response to M. Roth’s very attentive reading is that I totally agree that my decision to regard The Ambassadors as a key connection prompting us to see Pale Fire in a new light is precisely that: a decision. It is an interpretation and, as such, there is an element of "speculation" about it: just like other readings I examine in the book, it requires a leap of faith on the part of the reader. In the same way that you have to accept the metaphysical postulate to adhere to B. Boyd’s reading, you need to believe in The Ambassadors to adhere to mine.
When M. Roth calls my reading "probably more" speculative than those I analyze, I beg to
differ, though, for two reasons:
- All the arguments I put forward in the last two chapters of my book are supported by the text. My starting point is always the text, and this
includes the connection with Holbein’s painting which I derive not only from
the poem but from Kinbote’s account of his first meeting with Shade. Nothing I
write is absent from the text, which is somewhat different from some
interpretations which I examine in Chapter 6 whose starting point is not
textual but based on a number of preconceptions about Shade's or Kinbote's
psyches.
- My reading answers simple questions regarding the plot that previous interpretations of Pale Fire did not even consider. Why does Kinbote write that there is a loud amusement park in front of his lodgings when he knows this to be untrue? More crucially, why does Sybil give her husband’s manuscript to a man she clearly does not like just a few hours after her husband's death? These are elementary questions, but answering them can make quite a difference to our understanding of the novel, and I do not think any critic before me really addressed them. I am not claiming that my reading is more reliable than others, let alone that it should be considered as the only way to read the novel (I even state the opposite in my Conclusion), but it clearly envisages aspects of the text that previous critics had not given much attention to (Sybil’s passim Index entry is another example).
Lastly, I feel I should insist on the Conclusion in which I actually try to close the single/dual authorship controversy (one of the aims of the book, and a stage in my reflexion I had not reached in the essay M. Roth refers to) by suggesting that the novel makes it possible to reconcile dual and single authorship approaches if we take the view that Sybil and Hazel (two distinct characters) worked together as one author to produce Pale Fire.
To conclude, I am deeply grateful to M. Roth for
reading my book and sharing his thoughts with the Nabokovian community. Critical
as I may be of some of the points he makes, I am honored that a Pale Fire
expert should have taken time to examine my work, and found it interesting
enough to be discussed on this Forum.
René Alladaye