Pale Fire

[Vincent A. Maeder]

From: s~Z 
>>> 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?<<<

>>We should always follow the instructions of the commentary.<<

Part of the schizophrenia of this book is the various ways in which it
gets you to read it.  Almost as if there are several personalities in
the book vying for your attention (all the way from Kinbote's suggestion
to destruct the book itself to the commentaries' instructions), as if
each voice (POV?) is attempting to make its own case for authorship.
And what of Kinbote's suggestion to take the book apart?  Is this satire
on "deconstruction"?  If so, what does that say about whether we should
grapple for clues outside the text or not; is this satire on attempts to
claim everything that we can know is text, that is, is constructed of
signs in relationship?  And then that whole existence of an independent,
physical world. 

Just a--you know--a thought...

V.