NPPF: Is Pale Fire a good poem? + The future K-List

[The Great Quail]

Jasper writes,

> If removed from the surrounding
> commentary, would "Pale Fire" by John Shade be worth reading?

I think so; but I also think it is important to remember that the poem "Pale
Fire" is presented as the *final*  and *unedited* work of a "beloved"
American poet. (And possibly even incomplete.)

In the world of PF created by Nabokov, John Shade may be resting a bit on
his laurels. Additionally, his devotees would have an inherent,
already-built-in *interest* in the subject: "Oooh, Shade goes confessional!
Discusses his daughter's suicide! Talks about his own creative process!"

In other words, in the universe of the novel, "Pale Fire" is automatically a
"better" poem than it is in our world, with more credibility and
possibilities for engagement. There is a greater context available to enrich
it. Additionally, it is presented without the final editing, revisions, or
even conclusions that might have been imposed by a living John Shade. If
this scenario were actually real, critics would probably address its
"problems" in the same way they talk about "Turandot," "Lulu," and "Eyes
Wide Shut." 

> Kinbote's contribution to the poem almost certainly
> gives it greater value than it would have had on its own,

Partially because the poem *is* innately more interesting to Kinbote than to
us. (Not to mention, of course, that we get a few extra levels of enjoyment
out of his own misinterpretations and relationship with the poet.)

> Shade is ranked as a great poet in
> Pale-Fire-Land, "one oozy footstep behind Robert Frost" (48) and worthy of
> having the name of Main Hall at Wordsmith changed to honor him after his
> death.  

Well, so we are told -- but, by Shade and Kinbote themselves. The former may
be writing ironically or even conceitedly, the latter is delusional.

> is there any
> reasonable reason for us to believe that someone with Kinbote's claimed or
> implied background would be capable of writing something as impressive as
> the Commentary?  Morris says "Charles Kinbote, if he exists, is either a
> deposed Zemblan monarch, an insane Zemblan scholar, or an extremely insane
> Russian scholar. None of these back-stories seems likely to produce the
> astonishing literary gifts apparent in the commentary." (3).

With respect to J. Morris, I find this pretty smug and assuming. Why
couldn't an insane and obsessed Russian scholar write the commentary? Sounds
like an Ivory Tower bias to me.

Imagine, for a second, that the novel "Pale Fire" is actually real, a
legitimate manuscript containing poem and delusional commentary, existing in
a world without Nabokov. I suggest that Kinbote would earn a small place in
literary legend. Of course he would be seen as selfish and crazy and so on,
but I bet he would be studied -- after all, his prose certainly is stylish
and interesting, even if unpolished, pedantic, cranky and eccentric. Hell, I
bet there'd even be a few books of Kinbotean criticism, a "Kinbote
Reappraisal" some decades after his death, and eventually, maybe even a Web
site and a Mailing List....

--Quail