NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes

[Tim Strzechowski]

> Ah, interesting connections between the two poems and the two Johns. And
> of course there is also an additional linkage in the correspondence of
> the two Charles's, which all goes to suggest the ontological stakes for
> which VN is playing. Also sort of interesting, many Miltonists have
> stumbled on the subject of why Milton would have made Satan so
> attractive to readers. One of the more persistent arguments goes that
> Milton hadn't intended anything of the sort, but he was carried away by
> the power of poetry.
>
> Not the devil made me do it, but ...
>

Of course, it is essential that Milton "made Satan so attractive to readers"
because, from the beginning of the epic, the reader must be find something
sympathetic in his characterization.  The reader must be duped into
believing what he says, so that the reader can experience a "Fall" similar
to that of prelapsarian Mankind.  And Stanley Fish goes to great lengths to
explain precisely how this occurs over the course of the epic poem.  Part of
the irony in all this, as can be imagined, is the fact that the average
reader *knows* the story and how the characters function within the biblical
narrative, yet the Miltonic bard sets the reader up perfectly for having
such a lapse in Reason.

I question whether the Shade poem -- without the Foreward and
commentary --establishes a dynamic between poem and reader to a similar
degree.  As readers, we can read the poem "Pale Fire" separately, or in
conjunction with the Kinbote contributions, but imo I don't see the Shade
poem having much of an impact on the reader in and of itself; the poem
achieves its greatness from the ways it is misinterpreted and mishandled by
the commentator.  Likewise, there is more of a reader dynamic by way of the
Kinbote sections, which invite the reader to assess and judge poetic intent
(among other things).

Shade's poem is good.  Ironically, it's Kinbote's mishandling of the poem
that makes it great.

Respectfully,

Tim