Pale Fire

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 23:28, davemarc wrote:
> 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..

I really don't think so. There will be no diversion from Pynchon. It
will be impossible to keep Pynchon out of a discussion of Pale Fire.

 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.


I think it could tend to be just that. All book discussion should be to
some extent comparative. In order to emphasize the point, call PFPF Pale
Fire--Fynchon Focused. 
> 
> 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.

No. We shouldn't break up the p-list. It's survived too much. 

> 
> 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.

The point of book discussion lists is spontaneity and off the top of the
head reaction. Writing papers is a complete different activity.
> 
> 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.

Yes, we always hope for that.
> 
> And just out of curiosity:  Does anyone on this list have a problem with a
> Nabokov discussion at this point?
> 

Speaking for myself, no.

P.