(Fwd) Re: SLSL Intro "A Couple-Three Bonzos"

[calbert at hslboxmaster.com]

With some surgical excisions I offer this response to a MalignD 
query, not in the belief that it will edify in ANY way,  but rather to 
introduce someone relevant to Nabokov and by (my) extension, 
Pynchon........I am anxious to hear what anyone else who has read 
this author has to say......

love,
cfa


 


------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Self <calbert at hslboxmaster.com>
To:             	MalignD at aol.com
Subject:        	Re: SLSL Intro "A Couple-Three Bonzos"
Date sent:      	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:47:17 -0500



> << but I still think P is faking the intro..... >>
> 
> Why?
> 


I may be ignorant of it, but I cannot recall another instance where
Pynchon offers "himself" in such a manner. If he has spent his 
career "hiding" from those who might use biographical information 
to inform their "deconstructive" efforts, why would he do so on this 
occasion? Bucks, a sudden but fleeting epiphany?(Here I must 
indulge myself a bit. Did you ever see State and Main? Recall the 
scene where Sarah J. Parker locks herself in the bathroom, 
refusing to come out until she is  promised  that she will NOT be 
obliged to show her tits? For all the posturing about "integrity" and 
"vulnerability", the real reason for her pique is that she wants more 
cash. This, after  all - as the harried assistant proclaims, is a set of 
sweaterstakes most americans can "draw from memory". Do you 
think it reasonable that Pynchon would flash once, thereby 
compromising the character he has so assiduously
fashioned?)

Some suggest (and Nabokov may have stipulated for all I know) 
that  PF is, to some degree, a  response  to "deconstruction". The
last few lines where Kinbote threatens  to return in various forms re-
enforces the idea -at least the way I read it...THough I hesitate to
reach any concrete conclusions on the basis of such a small 
sample of his work, I suspect that theme will prove a consistent 
one in Nabokov's opus, and having tasted of it, I cannot but 
conclude that if Pynchon has a keystone influence (beyond the  
love of words, and the use of  "high/low" culture, the dreadful 
Nattochdag pun comes to mind,maybe you have to be swedish) - 
Nabokov is likely it.......

TO this you would likely respond  that Nabokov was a quite public
figure, and you may also direct me  to comments he has offered on 
his own  work. In turn I would suggest that, in his case, the 
obfuscation and false "suggestions" are integral elements of the 
novel itself (Pope is not only there for the purpose of Zembla). 
Given his history, Nabokov could NOT suddenly "erase" himself, so 
he, instead, plays the game with levels of narration . I need to read 
Lolita and see how Nabokov responded to what was surely an 
"outraged" reaction by a large part of his audience - but is it not 
likely that suggestions  that Humbert mirrored some  perverse 
quality of the author MAY have inspired Nabokov's "tussle" with 
"decons"? 

Did you ever get your hands on  Hero of Our Time by M. 
Lermontov? Lermonov spent much of his short career insisting that 
he should not be confused with the characters in his novels or 
poems ("I am not Byron" kind of  speaks for itself) - in his case 
however, it becomes increasingly clear as one peruses the limited 
biographical resources, that he very much IS his own inspiration. In 
HoOT, he goes so far as to employ three different narrators to 
establish some distance between "author" and the protagonist 
Pechorin..........I cannot ascribe it purely to irony that Lermotov's 
life follows Pechorins path all  the way to its tragic end.....Nor do I 
believe that Pynchon endured any classes with Nabokov in which 
this artist was NOT discussed.

I guess that the bottom line of this confused dribble is that I argue
for insincerity because it is consistent with not only Pynchon's
actions EX the SL intro, but also consitent with a  tradition in which
he was likely steeped.....



love,
cfa


> 


------- End of forwarded message -------