Emily Donahoe, in her blog, asks if anyone noticed the color purple and other images that evoke that color in the poem. I laughed because I didn't notice purple, I noticed the color blue everywhere, blue, blue-green, blue gray, hazy blue. But I went back and noticed the purple afterwards. Shade's first words of the commentary are mentioned when he and Kinbote talk about the "purple passages" of Hamlet and King Lear on pg 155. Then on pg 156 Shade is quoted as listing some things that bother him about students' papers, "Not having read the required book. Having read it like an idiot. Looking in it for symbols" then he gives an example (Emily I know you weren't looking for meaning in the color, this is just interesting). So there is probably no "meaning" in your notice of purple or my notice of blue. Does that mean we should not pay attention to the color? Probably not, but we can't think about it too much I guess. Dr. Sexson mentioned this when the class was discussing the color red in relation to Lolita. It is interesting what sticks with individuals after reading something. I wanted desperately for there to be some meaning in the color blue, but i might just be for effect, or to further ensnare readers in the trap of reading.
And I agree Emily....Nabokov is damn funny. I laughed out loud several times because Kinbote just begs to be laughed at. For example, Kinbote says,
"Although those notes, in the conformity with custom, come after the poem, the
reader is advised to consult them first and then study the poem with their help,
rereading them of course as he goes through the text, and perhaps, after having
done with the poem, consulting them a third time so as to complete the picture"
(28).
This guy Kinbote thinks pretty highly of himself, his work, and his relation to both the poet and the poem. Also another 'laugh out loud' moment was when Kinbote suggests "purchasing two copies of the same work which can then be placed in adjacent positions on a comfortable table" (28). C'mon.
Kinbote strikes me as the guy who thinks he is really close and friendly with someone, but isn't. Or is desperately trying to make more of a connection with John Shade than what Shade offered in the way of a friendship. I was suspicious numerous times of their "friendship" but I thought it was weird when Kinbote said, "Our close friendship was on that higher, exclusively intellectual level where one can rest from emotional troubles, not share them" (27). The point I'm trying to make is that I am skeptical. I mean John Shade nearly ran over him the first time Kinbote ever saw him, and Kinbote watches Shade through the window like a creeper. He is looking into the living room of Shade, he's not hanging out in it. Nabokov makes Kinbote unreliable in many ways, one way I found was on page 76 when Kinbote spells Finnegans Wake incorrectly as Finnigan's Wake, (complete with an apostrophe) and isn't Kinbote supposed to be a scholar?!
Kinbote leaves the reader with a statement at the end of the Foreword saying, "for better or worse, it is the commentator who has the last word" (29) and also says that without his notes "Shade's text simply has no human reality at all..."(28). My question then is, can we only know Shade through Kinbote? Probably not, we have the poem to read.
Pale Fire, the poem: Line 516, "...And yet/It missed the gist of the whole thing; it missed/What.jpg)
mostly interests the preterist;" so what this might be saying is that the gist of the whole thing is what interests the preterist.... Line 79, "A preterist: one who collects cold nests./Here was my bedroom, now reserved for guests." His old bedroom is a cold nest, maybe, like his Aunt's preserved room, like his deceased daughter's room. Just thinking about this theme or idea, of birds. I can't stop underlining and 
circling references to BIRDS!
Kinbote strikes me as the guy who thinks he is really close and friendly with someone, but isn't. Or is desperately trying to make more of a connection with John Shade than what Shade offered in the way of a friendship. I was suspicious numerous times of their "friendship" but I thought it was weird when Kinbote said, "Our close friendship was on that higher, exclusively intellectual level where one can rest from emotional troubles, not share them" (27). The point I'm trying to make is that I am skeptical. I mean John Shade nearly ran over him the first time Kinbote ever saw him, and Kinbote watches Shade through the window like a creeper. He is looking into the living room of Shade, he's not hanging out in it. Nabokov makes Kinbote unreliable in many ways, one way I found was on page 76 when Kinbote spells Finnegans Wake incorrectly as Finnigan's Wake, (complete with an apostrophe) and isn't Kinbote supposed to be a scholar?!
Kinbote leaves the reader with a statement at the end of the Foreword saying, "for better or worse, it is the commentator who has the last word" (29) and also says that without his notes "Shade's text simply has no human reality at all..."(28). My question then is, can we only know Shade through Kinbote? Probably not, we have the poem to read.
Pale Fire, the poem: Line 516, "...And yet/It missed the gist of the whole thing; it missed/What
.jpg)
mostly interests the preterist;" so what this might be saying is that the gist of the whole thing is what interests the preterist.... Line 79, "A preterist: one who collects cold nests./Here was my bedroom, now reserved for guests." His old bedroom is a cold nest, maybe, like his Aunt's preserved room, like his deceased daughter's room. Just thinking about this theme or idea, of birds. I can't stop underlining and 
circling references to BIRDS!The bird on the left is a Cedar Waxwing and I would say it is one of the most elegant looking birds. There is also the Bohemian Waxwing (not pictured) The upper right picture of a bird is a mockingbird which Shade seems to use the mockingbird image in several verses, Pale Fire.
Sorry about this enormous blog, but I have so much that I underlined and so much that begs discussion. Nabokov tends to do this do his readers, drive them off the deep end in a good way. I hope I'm going in the right direction here. AND I'm only on page 87!!! actually further because I keep updating this blog post. I don't even know what is going on.
*****
Another Dr. Sexson addition:
Amazing Camouflage Animals
How cool would it be to blend into the background sometimes? These animals use their powers of camouflage to catch prey, to hide from predators, and to catch a moment of peace and quiet.Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/amazing-camouflage-animal_n_316008.html?slidenumber=0#slide_image
This made me think of all the camouflaged things in Nabokov's novels that I miss, like when I miss cool things when I'm hiking that are right next to me. But the most intriguing part of the camouflaged animals for me was the animals that use their camouflage to catch prey.....why do I always feel like Nabokov is a predator, and I am the oblivious prey fooled by the camouflage.
This picture to the right is from this website I am sending you to and made me think of the predetor/prey with Nabokov. Pile of leaves? or deadly snake?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment