NPPF Comm 2: Parents: some notes

[Don Corathers]

His final remark in that
> paragraph about a "'hurley-house'" is another thinly-veiled attack on
> Professor Hurley, and it seems to me that the reason he goes through the
> whole Lukin etymology thing, and then into the the list of names derived
> from various professions, is just to set up this ad hominem dig at Hurley.

I think this is partly true, although Nabokov the uber-author had his own
reason for the surname exercise: to plant the name Botkin in it, like a
dandelion in a pot of impatiens, in a context that suggests the malleability
of names. If Lukin can become Lukashevich, Botkin might change into
something else, too.

> I think there might be scope for another pile or sub-pile which is
comprised
> of those narrative and expository elements which derive from Kinbote's
> professional jealousies and paranoias.

This would be an entertaining stack. I would include not just professional
jealousies but also material that grows out of personal affronts: the
fascinating Gerald Emerald strand comes to mind.

Don



----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: NPPF Comm 2: Parents: some notes


> on 31/8/03 11:48 AM, Don Corathers at gumbo at fuse.net wrote:
>
> >> pg. 101
> >> "the neatly stacked batches of [Pale Fire index cards] lie in the sun
on
> > my
> >> table as so many ingots of fabulous metal"
> >>
> >> Prompts a question that I don't recall being asked: could Kinbote be in
it
> >> for the money?
> >
> > He says in the foreword that his contract with Sybil provides that "all
> > profits, except the publisher's percentage, would accrue to her." I
think
> > he's just drawing a contrast between how highly he values the poem and
> > Hurley's dismissive mention of it.
>
> I think he's also gloating about the fact that he's the one who has
> possession of the poem, thumbing his nose at both Hurley and Sybil because
> they don't have it. Note also the way he starts off the previous paragraph
> saying that a "Commentary where placid scholarship should reign is not the
> place for blasting the preposterous defects" of Hurley's article, and yet
> that's exactly what he's doing right there in the sentence (and all
through
> the first three paragraphs of the note in fact). >
> best
>
>