Pale Fire

[Don Corathers]

Respectfully disagree. I think the interest in both readings shows a
vitality in the list that hasn't been easy to see for a while. And I think
simultaneous readings might help sustain that, for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, having two readings going at the same time will give the rest
of us something to do when one of them breaks down into two-party acrimony,
as most conversations here do sooner or later.

And as has been pointed out both obliquely and explicitly in the last few
days, there are certain resonances between Pale Fire and what we do here. It
is possible and even likely that the juxtaposition might itself generate
some contention--I guess it already has--but at least we'd be arguing about
something interesting.

Don








----- Original Message -----
From: "davemarc" <davemarc at panix.com>
To: "Pynchlist" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: Pale Fire


> I'm impressed by all the enthusiasm for Pale Fire, but I'd like to voice a
> cautionary note, as I'm concerned that the focus of this list has already
> been so diverted from Pynchon that an extended discussion of Nabokov could
> be a big turnoff for people who came here or come here for all Pynchon,
all
> the time.. So here are some
> suggestions that I hope will be considered. They're in no particular
order.
>
> 1. Make it a Pale Fire-Pynchon discussion.
>
> 2. Create a new mailing list for the Pale Fire discussion (at a place such
> as yahoogroups.com, which is free and easy to use) and report back to
> pynchon-l with Pynchon-related discoveries.
>
> 3. If the discussion does take place here and here alone, consider it an
> opportunity to try the essay/book report approach that has met with some
> interest here. There's no law that says that every pynchon-l book
discussion
> has to be a dissection like the ones we've been having. With something
short
> like the 1984 Foreword and with something long and at least superficially
> off-topic like Pale Fire, it might be good to experiment with reading the
> work and then sharing an essay of a prescribed length (i.e. 500-1000
words)
> that shows off your insights and erudition and gives your readers a chance
> to savor your concise, elegant, and well-reasoned point-of-view.
>
> Regardless of what the ultimate decision turns out to be, I hope that
> whatever PF does occur turns out to be fruitful and flattering to all
> participants.
>
> And just out of curiosity:  Does anyone on this list have a problem with a
> Nabokov discussion at this point?
>
> d.
>
>
>
>