Pale Fire

[Malignd]

I've been away for a week and missed the discussion
over reading Pale Fire; read enough to gather that
Scoop, predictably is opposed, as this would
necessitate his reading an author other than Pynchon.

Pale Fire seems clearly intended by Nabokov to be fun
for a dutiful reader and a group read has every good
chance of being a rewarding experience, although I
would add the following as a consideration.  

Pale Fire is a much-discussed book and much of the
discussion about it, particularly the essays (now
book) by Brian Boyd and commentaries to them, as well
as essays by others (e.g, Richard Rorty) are readily
available on the internet at the Nabokov site and they
get very deep into the bottomless questions the novel
raises, particularly those of authorship.  I don't
think any discussion of the novel would be able to
avoid these essays and commentaries, nor should it;
but the group read would probably, necessarily, become
a gloss on what's already been covered therein
(although you won't find out where the jewels are
buried).  

<<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.>>

The commentary, remember, was written by Kinbote;
following his instructions is one way to go, I suppose
...

It's been noted that following the internal references
as they appear (rather than reading front to back, no
exception) will have a reader with four fingers stuck
in the book, holding pages, before the reader is even
out of the Intro.  

My hunch is such was probably intended by Nabokov.







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com