NPPF Canto 1: 1-4

[jbor]

on 25/7/03 8:30 AM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:

> I don't have it in front of me, but I think you called Nabokov's prosody
> corny.   

No, I didn't. The "wax" = "smudge" correlation is corny, and it is Shade's
prosody which is off (imo).

>> ... but you seem determined that your interpretation that it is a repetition
>> of the poet envisioning himself as the bird's shadow is certain.    That
>> difference of opinion is not something we can resolve.
 
> 
> I'm merely reading the poem.   That seems to me the flow.   I'm not dropping
> anchor.   That we can't resolve it seems a little dramatic.

Not at all. You say it reads as x, I say it reads as y. End of story.

> I just don't agree with the way you're arguing; I'm pointing out that you seem
> to be arguing from a certainty that isn't   afforded you.

I'm arguing from the way I read the poem, in the context of the novel.

> Also, if you mean that the idea of the poem as of good quality is what has
> been generally been denounced as nonsense, we're certainly reading different
> commentaries.

No, this is pretty much the opposite of what I've been saying. Nabokov's
poem is an entertaining and well-written parody and, as such, of "good
quality"; Shade's poem, however, is bombastic and self-indulgent.

best