Pale Fire

[Terrance]

> 
> Comparison between Kinbote's and Pynchon's forewords could make an
> interesting exercise.
> 
> Does the latter ever show lack of editing?


I don't think so. Although it's loopy and patchy, the humor and
allusions are a bit mixed up and stupid,   that's the way he writes
sometimes. He mixes up terms without defining them (i.e., fascist). His
paragraphs are incomplete. Some paragraphs have been inserted in at odd
angles for no reason at all. 

What is his purpose? 

What are  P and K trying to accomplish by writing this Foreword? 

Is P offering an objective retelling of an historical event (the bombing
of London and the reaction of the Churchill cabinet) to inform readers
(American HS students?) who may not be acquainted with the story of the
bombings and so on? 

How about K? 

Is K offering an objective retelling of the events of Shade's life, his
composing of the poem and so forth? 

He seems to know certain things he can't possibly know. And he seems
ignorant of things he should know if he is telling us the truth.  

Is P or K  presenting a subjective narrative? If so, is it persuasive? 
And, is it told from a clearly defined POV? 

P doesn't follow a logical sequence. 
Neither does Kinbote. But K seems to be trying to. 

P doesn't follow a logical time sequence. 
Neither does Kinbote. But again, K seems to be trying to do so. 

P does use details to establish a setting (c 2003 etc.) 
So does Kinbote. But K seems to be more interested in establishing these
dates as defense for his critical position. A froward? 

P makes his "characters" believable. 
Kinbote does not.