Pale Fire

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 15:49, Terrance wrote:
> 
> 
> Jasper Fidget wrote:
> > 
> > Well, we could divide the NPPF sub-group into two sub-sub-groups,
> > NPPF-SPOILED and NPPF-UNSPOILED.  Or we could just wait until a certain
> > Expiration date for spoilage (the way they do with lettuce).  (I *think*
> > I'm joking.)
> > 
> > If you were teaching this book to a classroom of students I think you'd
> > probably go through it once linearly and then discuss it as a whole only
> > afterwards.  Or would you teach it as "hypertext"?  Or would you tell
> > them: "Don't come to class until you've read this book from beginning to
> > end ("Pale Fire,"[...]"a distant northern land.")?
> >
> 
> In his Foreword Kinbote advises us to consult the commentary first and
> then read the poem. I guess he assumes we're reading his "skimpy"
> Foreword first. So now that I think on it, I kinda like the idea of
> reading the poem first, the index, the foreword,  and then the
> commentary last. But what about the other ploys to get us reading the
> text in a particular sequence? For example, if the commentary on Canto I
> tells us to see Canto III lines 6-9 should we take a peak? If we do will
> we be obliged ("see ... commentary") or at least tempted to read  the
> commentary on Canto II lines 6-9 and so on?

Kinbote's advice is totally self-serving, isn't it? (this isn't giving
anything away but evident from the start)

I understand and accept the issues Terrance is raising but now after
some early doubts of my own I don't see any alternative to plodding
along piece by piece. Inevitably there will be some jumping ahead.
However too much darting about will result in chaos. Judgment on the
part of all will be required. Is this trip really necessary? Can it
reasonably be put off. Restraint will be required. Sometimes superhuman
restraint. This will be a test of our group intelligence.

P.