NPPF: Notes C.1-4 - C.42

[jbor]

on 24/8/03 1:14 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:

> Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> lived or died is indeterminate.

Well, "slain" = dead. Whether or not the bird is imaginary is irrelevant.

None of the hypothetical explanations -- all of them potentially valid
reasons why Kinbote might have reconstituted the opening line as "a waxwing
*stunned*" rather than one "slain" -- are indicated or supported by the
text. Kinbote doesn't just fabricate Zembla in the commentary, he fabricates
a whole lot of stuff, not least of which is the extent of reciprocality and
intimacy in his relationship with Shade.

I agree with you that the referent for the poem's opening conceit might be
Shade's near-death experience at the Crashaw Club. But the point is that
Kinbote's interpretation of these lines is both inaccurate and an
embellishment on Shade's text. In my opinion, that is.

best


>>>> C.1-4
>>>> pg 73
>>>> "a bird knocking itself out": Kinbote assumes the bird has not died,
>>>> although this is not stated explicitly in the poem.
>> 
>> on 23/8/03 11:22 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>> 
>>> And it's important to know this if we hadn't gathered it already. The
>>> bird's survival can be seen (perhaps only retrospectively) as a bit of
>>> foreshadowing. 
>>> 
>>> (or perhaps the bird really is dead :-))
>> 
>> I think "slain" is pretty conclusive, as far as Shade's poem goes.
> 
> 
> And Shade was conclusively dead when he said "one night I died" ((682)
> 
> and "I did know that I had crossed/The border."(699-700)
> 
> 
> Kinbote's
>> very first entry indicates to the reader just how prone to "irresponsible
>> embellishment" he is, and how badly he misinterprets the text.
> 
> Yes, this is pretty conclusive. If CK misinterprets the text as often as
> RJ does then surely the bird is dead. (joke)
> 
> 
> There's no
>> mention in the poem of Shade picking up the bird, for example,
> 
> K is "visualizing" how such a scene might have appeared. Perhaps he had
> at some point seen S pick up a stunned bird (not the particular bird of
> the poem naturally) or more likely had a past incident described to him.
> Birds' knocking themselves unconscious, then flying away a few moments
> later no worse for wear isn't an uncommon thing. I remember the first
> time I saw this as a very young child. I certainly assumed the seemingly
> lifeless thing was dead and (contra K) had no inclination to pick it up.
> It's rapid accent a minute or two later into the blue isn't something
> one forgets.
> 
> Why should K deliberately distort S's thought?  Seems to me most likely
> that K honestly interpreted the bird as surviving. Why lie about
> something that how nothing to do with the price of eggs in Zembla.
> 
> 
> and Kinbote
>> misreads lines 3-4 as though they imply that the actual bird "Lived on, flew
>> on" when in fact it's purely a metaphysical conceit, a flight of Shade's
>> self-characterising fancy.
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, it's all Shade's fancy. And whether the imaginary bird
> lived or died is indeterminate. (like so much else in the novel) But
> survival for the bird and for Shade (up until the final moment) makes as
> much sense as anything.