The following blog does not necessarily have to do with my specific paper topic, but it nonetheless provides a few interesting discoveries (by way of Mary McCarthy) on Zembla.
“‘That crystal land,’ notes the commentator, loony Professor Botkin. ‘Perhaps an allusion to Zembla, my dear country.’ On the plane of everyday sanity, he errs. But on the plane of poetry and magic, he is speaking the simple truth, for Zembla is Semblance, Appearance, the mirror-realm, the Looking Glass of Alice. This is the first clue in the treasure-hunt, pointing the reader to the dual or punning nature of the whole work's composition. Pale Fire, a reflective poem, is also a prism of reflections. Zembla, the land of seeming, now governed by the Extremists, is the antipodes of Appalachia, in real homespun democratic America, but it is also the semblable, the twin, as seen in a distorting glass. Semblance becomes resemblance.”
-Mary McCarthy, A Bolt From The Blue
In Mary McCarthy’s interpretation of Pale Fire, Zembla is a land of both semblance and resemblance. According to the Google Dictionary, semblance refers to “the outward appearance or apparent form of something, esp. when the reality is different,” while resemblance is “a way in which two or more things are alike.” Thus, Zembla is both a deception and distortion of the real world as well as an uncannily accurate reflection of actuality. How did McCarthy arrive at these conclusions? The first, and perhaps most obvious, method in which to connect Zembla with semblance and resemblance is the simple world association, as semblance and resemblance seem to contain the word “Zembla” within their pronunciations. As we have learned with Nabokov, such word play is both intentional and relevant, and the sound of his fictitious people and places is fundamentally connected with the person or place’s significance. Furthermore, there are parallels between Zembla and Nabokov’s representation of the real world, New Wye, which can be considered resemblances. For example, Uzumondov, the head of the extremist Shadows group in Zembla, and Professor Emerald at Wordsmith College are both characters that Kinbote despises, and both are portrayed as wearing green jackets. In this case, these two characters of Zembla (the imaginary) and New Wye (the real) resemble each other because they share similar qualities. But Zembla is also a semblance, or false façade, of the real world. As McCarthy points out in her essay, the traditional connotations of the colors green and red are flipped in Zembla. Red, usually associated with death or destructive emotions, is the color that saves the life of King Charles during the revolution, as forty of his supporters donned red hats and sweaters to look like (resemble) the fleeing king and thus confuse the extremists. On the other hand, the color green, which usually signifies youth and the life-giving qualities of nature, is portrayed as the color of anxiety and pursuit with regard to Uzumondov’s green jacket. In this manner, an aspect of Zembla is similar to the real world, but in an inverted fashion: in other words there is semblance between Zembla and reality.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Zembla and the Ultima Thule: Paper outline
For my paper, I plan to explore the concept of Zembla as an ultima thule, a northern land that is beyond the boundaries of the known world. As a starting point, I will establish the interpretation that Zembla is an invention of Kinbote’s imagination and that it thus can be considered an imaginary land, an ultima thule. The Roman poet Virgil first used the term ultima thule to symbolize an unattainable goal, and I will attempt to identify Kinbote’s impossible aspiration. This discussion will also most likely include reference to Halvard Solness’s “castles in the air” in Ibsen’s The Master Builder, as the image of castles floating in the sky, like Zembla, symbolizes an impossible ambition.
Additionally, I plan to discuss the parallels between New Wye and Zembla, as if Zembla is an imaginary ultima thule, New Wye must in some way represent the real world. Some of the parallels may include the two universities, namely Wordsmith College in New Wye and the university a disguised Kinbote taught at in Zembla (page 76). There are parallels between the characters in Zembla and New Wye as well, such as the imaginary killer Jakob Gradus and the real killer Jack Grey and between Kinbote’s wife Disa and Sybil Shade (page 207). I might also discuss some of the more subtle and debatable similarities between characters in Zembla and New Wye, such as how Kinbote and Hazel Shade are both potentially mentally unstable (page 193).
As another topic for consideration, I will explore the importance of the name “Zembla” to the concept of the ultima thule, specifically with regard to how the name seems to be taken out of the word “resemblance.” It is intended that this connection will strengthen my argument about the parallels and resemblances between Zembla and New Wye. I will also conduct some research to see from where exactly Nabokov got the name “Zembla.” If it turns out that Zembla is referenced in other literary works, the connections will be important to understanding the significance of Kinbote’s “distant northern land.”
The final idea that I plan to discuss in my paper concerns the significance of the northern aspect to Zembla and the ultima thule, as both are not only imaginary places, but imaginary places in the north. Why must these fictitious places be in the north? I will try to find out whether there is some meaning or significance in mythology to the direction north that would make it appropriate to hold an imaginary land. This discussion will include references to The Biographer’s Tale, as A.S. Byatt mentions how Linnaeus would sometimes report having other-worldly experiences on his long journeys in the Lapland (an area in northern Scandinavia). Finally, I will bring in Henrik Ibsen’s plays, as the characters Hilda in The Master Builder and Dr. Stockmann in An Enemy of the People both make their appearances in the plot after returning from a sort of exile in the north. Ibsen seems to draw a lot of imagery from the northern latitudes, and perhaps this has some relevance to my discussion of the importance of Zembla’s northern location.
Additionally, I plan to discuss the parallels between New Wye and Zembla, as if Zembla is an imaginary ultima thule, New Wye must in some way represent the real world. Some of the parallels may include the two universities, namely Wordsmith College in New Wye and the university a disguised Kinbote taught at in Zembla (page 76). There are parallels between the characters in Zembla and New Wye as well, such as the imaginary killer Jakob Gradus and the real killer Jack Grey and between Kinbote’s wife Disa and Sybil Shade (page 207). I might also discuss some of the more subtle and debatable similarities between characters in Zembla and New Wye, such as how Kinbote and Hazel Shade are both potentially mentally unstable (page 193).
As another topic for consideration, I will explore the importance of the name “Zembla” to the concept of the ultima thule, specifically with regard to how the name seems to be taken out of the word “resemblance.” It is intended that this connection will strengthen my argument about the parallels and resemblances between Zembla and New Wye. I will also conduct some research to see from where exactly Nabokov got the name “Zembla.” If it turns out that Zembla is referenced in other literary works, the connections will be important to understanding the significance of Kinbote’s “distant northern land.”
The final idea that I plan to discuss in my paper concerns the significance of the northern aspect to Zembla and the ultima thule, as both are not only imaginary places, but imaginary places in the north. Why must these fictitious places be in the north? I will try to find out whether there is some meaning or significance in mythology to the direction north that would make it appropriate to hold an imaginary land. This discussion will include references to The Biographer’s Tale, as A.S. Byatt mentions how Linnaeus would sometimes report having other-worldly experiences on his long journeys in the Lapland (an area in northern Scandinavia). Finally, I will bring in Henrik Ibsen’s plays, as the characters Hilda in The Master Builder and Dr. Stockmann in An Enemy of the People both make their appearances in the plot after returning from a sort of exile in the north. Ibsen seems to draw a lot of imagery from the northern latitudes, and perhaps this has some relevance to my discussion of the importance of Zembla’s northern location.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Nabokov and Vonnegut
While reading Pale Fire, there were several instances in which I could not help but drawing parallels between Nabokov’s novel and some of the works of Kurt Vonnegut, specifically Slaughterhouse Five. For example, in the poem Pale Fire a “gauzy mockingbird” is described as making the sound “to-wee, to-wee,” (line 66). Additionally, a few lines later is the couplet “Upward hop-flop, and instantly (to-wee!)/ Returning to her perch—the new TV,” (lines 69-80). The bird song that the poem evokes reminded me of the last sentence in Slaughterhouse Five, in which a little bird sings “Poo-tee-weet.” Vonnegut uses the bird song to illustrate how it is impossible to intelligently respond to the atrocities of a massacre such as the Dresden firebombing, and how all there is to say after witnessing such an event is “Poo-tee-weet.” The off-handed, isolated nature of “to-wee!” in line 70 of Pale Fire is similar to the way that Vonnegut uses “Poo-tee-weet” as its own standalone sentence at the end of Slaughterhouse Five, and may likewise be attempting to portray John Shade’s difficult and spontaneous emotional response to the suicide of his daughter.
The other occurrence in which I was reminded of Slaughterhouse Five was in Kinbote’s commentary to the poem’s line 627. In reference to “The great Starover Blue,” the note reads “This Sinyavin migrated from Saratov to Seattle and begot a son who eventually changed his name to Blue and married Stella lazurchik, an Americanized Kashube. So it goes. Honest Starover Blue will probably be surprised by the epithet bestowed upon him by a jesting Shade,” (page 236). The use of the phrase “So it goes” invokes Vonnegut’s employment of an identical line after the mention of any character dying in Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut used “So it goes” to portray the stark inevitability of death as well as the Tralfamadorian idea that one is dead in some moments but alive in others. Nabokov’s use of this simple, three word phrase would seem to be a direct allusion to Slaughterhouse Five, but some quick research will show that Pale Fire (1962) was written seven years before Slaughterhouse Five (1969). Thus, Nabokov could not have drawn from Vonnegut’s novel for the two instanced discussed above, as Slaughterhouse Five was not yet written. It is possible that Vonnegut’s initial inspiration to use the phrase “So it goes” came from Pale Fire, as he likely would have read some of Nabokov’s work after Nabokov became famous by writing the novel Lolita. Of course, these connections between Pale Fire and Slaughterhouse Five could be nothing but coincidences, but as we discussed in class, pure coincidences are rare in Nabokov’s writing.
Aside from the aforementioned “reminders” of Slaughterhouse Five in Pale Fire, there are some broader connections between the two works. Both plots center around a mentally unstable character (Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire and Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five) who finds comfort in an imaginary place (Zembla in Pale Fire and Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse Five). Both main characters appear to retreat into their imaginary worlds at times of conflict, and other characters tend not to believe the stories that Kinbote and Pilgrim tell from Zembla and Tralfamadore. Though their friends and family see these characters as crazy for their tales of fantastical lands, Kinbote and Pilgrim are heavily dependent on their respective ultima thules for defining who they are. Additionally, Pale Fire and Slaughterhouse Five both deal with themes of immortality. In Pale Fire John Shade sees butterflies as proof that Hazel’s spirit is alive, and in Slaughterhouse Five the Tralfamadorians believe that death is but one moment in the continuum of life and that death can occupy one moment and life the next. Indeed, it is almost uncanny how well the plots and themes of these two stalwarts of 20th century literature correspond, and I am sure there are other connections that I am missing. All the more reason to keep digging deeper and to keep making discoveries!
The other occurrence in which I was reminded of Slaughterhouse Five was in Kinbote’s commentary to the poem’s line 627. In reference to “The great Starover Blue,” the note reads “This Sinyavin migrated from Saratov to Seattle and begot a son who eventually changed his name to Blue and married Stella lazurchik, an Americanized Kashube. So it goes. Honest Starover Blue will probably be surprised by the epithet bestowed upon him by a jesting Shade,” (page 236). The use of the phrase “So it goes” invokes Vonnegut’s employment of an identical line after the mention of any character dying in Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut used “So it goes” to portray the stark inevitability of death as well as the Tralfamadorian idea that one is dead in some moments but alive in others. Nabokov’s use of this simple, three word phrase would seem to be a direct allusion to Slaughterhouse Five, but some quick research will show that Pale Fire (1962) was written seven years before Slaughterhouse Five (1969). Thus, Nabokov could not have drawn from Vonnegut’s novel for the two instanced discussed above, as Slaughterhouse Five was not yet written. It is possible that Vonnegut’s initial inspiration to use the phrase “So it goes” came from Pale Fire, as he likely would have read some of Nabokov’s work after Nabokov became famous by writing the novel Lolita. Of course, these connections between Pale Fire and Slaughterhouse Five could be nothing but coincidences, but as we discussed in class, pure coincidences are rare in Nabokov’s writing.
Aside from the aforementioned “reminders” of Slaughterhouse Five in Pale Fire, there are some broader connections between the two works. Both plots center around a mentally unstable character (Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire and Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five) who finds comfort in an imaginary place (Zembla in Pale Fire and Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse Five). Both main characters appear to retreat into their imaginary worlds at times of conflict, and other characters tend not to believe the stories that Kinbote and Pilgrim tell from Zembla and Tralfamadore. Though their friends and family see these characters as crazy for their tales of fantastical lands, Kinbote and Pilgrim are heavily dependent on their respective ultima thules for defining who they are. Additionally, Pale Fire and Slaughterhouse Five both deal with themes of immortality. In Pale Fire John Shade sees butterflies as proof that Hazel’s spirit is alive, and in Slaughterhouse Five the Tralfamadorians believe that death is but one moment in the continuum of life and that death can occupy one moment and life the next. Indeed, it is almost uncanny how well the plots and themes of these two stalwarts of 20th century literature correspond, and I am sure there are other connections that I am missing. All the more reason to keep digging deeper and to keep making discoveries!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Five discoveries and some further discussion
Five Discoveries:
1. The commentator Charles Kinbote is the same person as the Zemblan King Charles the Beloved. This discovery becomes apparent to readers fairly early in the commentary, as it is no coincidence that the king and the commentator are both named Charles, that Kinbote knows all of the finest details of the king’s escape, and that Kinbote has a distinct love for Zembla, his “dear country” (page 74). Though this is not a particularly difficult discovery to make, it is important to the reader’s understanding of the commentator’s unique situation and potential biases.
2. Zembla is an imaginary location. This observation should also arise fairly early in the commentary, as Kinbote portrays Zembla as a fantastical land where all bearded Zemblans closely resemble each other, where citizens have taken up the hobby of parachuting, and where a king was able to escape a revolution by crawling through a secret underground passage. Though maybe initially only a conjecture, Zembla’s status as imaginary is solidified if the reader examines the index, which refers to Zembla as “a distant northern land.” This broad and murky definition seems to indicate that Zembla is not a tangible place, as if it was there would probably be a more specific geographical reference. This discovery that Zembla is not a real country encourages readers to further question the legitimacy of Kinbote’s statements, as it appears that Kinbote has an affinity for inventing his own story.
3. John Shade does not necessarily view Kinbote as a friend, but does at least pity Kinbote. Kinbote believes that he and Shade are the best of friends, but Shade seems to have sympathy for Kinbote more than enjoy Kinbote’s company. This is illustrated when Shade is overheard stating in a conversation “That is the wrong word [readers do not know the exact word]. One should not apply it to a person who deliberately peels off a drab and unhappy past and replaces it with a brilliant invention. That’s merely turning a new leaf with the left hand,” (page 238). Kinbote believes that Shade is referring to someone else in town who is crazy, but it’s fairly obvious to readers that he is talking about Kinbote. This would lead to the conclusion that Shade is aware of Kinbote’s unstable mental state, but that he understands Kinbote’s need to create his own fantasyland of Zembla. It is thus that John Shade has sympathy for Kinbote, even though he may not view Kinbote as his best friend.
4. Jakob Gradus is imaginary. For one, Gradus’s many aliases (page 77, see page 77 at once) suggest that he lacks a concrete identity, and hence that he is fictional. Additionally, when describing Gradus’s character Kinbote adds the parenthetical anecdote to one of his statements of “this argument necessitates, I know, a temporary granting to Gradus of the status of man,” (page 279). At first, this little aside appears to be yet another of Kinbote’s insults toward Gradus, but if the reader considers the deeper implications of the statement, Kinbote may be implying that Gradus is not human and thus not real. Kinbote discusses the “human incompleteness” of Gradus later in this same passage, which again suggests that Gradus is not real, but imaginary. This discovery necessarily changes the reader’s interpretation of Shade’s murder, as if Gradus is not real, John Shade’s killer must have been someone else (see discussion below).
* 5. Kinbote fabricated some of the “variants” to Shade’s poem. In the index under the variants entry, some of the citations are parenthetically followed by “K’s contribution, x lines.” This seems to suggest that Kinbote himself added these variations and unpublished lines to Shade’s poem, not Shade himself as readers are initially led to believe. One of the variations that was Kinbote’s “contribution” is the eight-line section that’s discussed on page 99. This variant mentions the Zemblan king’s escape story by referencing a “northern king” who was able to successfully flee the country only because “some forty of his followers that night impersonated him.” It makes sense that this variant is entirely Kinbote’s fabrication, as Shade rarely referenced anything to do with Zembla in the actual poem. Thus, such inventions compromise Kinbote’s credibility as a commentator, and all of the elements of his commentary must now be considered with careful skepticism.
As to the matter of Charles the Beloved’s “crown jewels,” there are several hints in the commentary and index. The crown jewels are comprised of a gemmed scepter, a ruby necklace, and a diamond-studded crown (page 276). We first learn that two Russians, later given the names Niagarin and Andronnikov, are systematically digging through the king’s castle looking for the buried treasure. Knowledge of these actions by the Russians does not worry the king, which indicates that the crown jewels are not hidden in the castle. On page 212, Kinbote divulges to his ex-queen Disa that the jewels are in “their usual hiding place.” The jewels therefore must be located at a secure site, as the king is confident enough to keep the treasure in the same location for a long period of time. Furthermore, Kinbote affirms that the Russians are not looking in the correct place for the jewels when he remarks on pages 243-244 that a helper named Bland assisted the king in hiding the treasure in a “quite unexpected corner of Zembla.” Thus, we now know that the crown jewels are not hidden in the palace but are concealed in a remote location in Zembla. Finally, in the index Kinbote brings readers on a journey from Crown Jewels to Hiding Place to potaynik to taynik all with the use of “see…” or the cross referencing symbol of (q.v.). As occurs frequently in the index, Kinbote sends readers back to the beginning of the cycle by including “see Crown Jewels” in the entry for Taynik. From this referencing, the reader can conclude that the crown jewels are hidden in a place with the name of Taynik, which is attached to the abbreviated “Russ.” and is defined as a “secret place” in its entry in the index. Presumably, Russ. stands for Russia, which seems to contradict Kinbote’s earlier statement that the treasure was located somewhere in Zembla. This apparent inconsistency naturally leaves the reader questioning the geographical relationship between Zembla and Russia, and whether there is any relation between the two terms.
Throughout the commentary, the reader is led to believe that Jakob Gradus, the assassin belonging to the Anti-Karlist Shadow group, killed John Shade. But the more Kinbote refers to him, the less realistic Gradus appears. For example, the fact that Gradus goes by multiple aliases (Jack Degree, Jacques de Grey, Jack d’Argus, etc) gives his character a fictional quality, as if his lack of a consistent name equates to a lack of a concrete identity. Consequently, if Gradus is interpreted to be fictional or imaginary, there would be only one other logical suspect (besides Shade himself) for the murder mystery (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that we believe Kinbote’s version of the murder story). This one suspect is Kinbote, who would have the logical motive of wanting to acquire the poem. The interpretation that Kinbote murdered Shade is supported at the end of the commentary (page 300), where Kinbote admits that “My work is finished. My poet is dead.” In these consecutive sentences of parallel structure, Kinbote seems to be connecting his work with the death of Shade, which would suggest that Kinbote, not the invented Gradus, murdered John Shade.
1. The commentator Charles Kinbote is the same person as the Zemblan King Charles the Beloved. This discovery becomes apparent to readers fairly early in the commentary, as it is no coincidence that the king and the commentator are both named Charles, that Kinbote knows all of the finest details of the king’s escape, and that Kinbote has a distinct love for Zembla, his “dear country” (page 74). Though this is not a particularly difficult discovery to make, it is important to the reader’s understanding of the commentator’s unique situation and potential biases.
2. Zembla is an imaginary location. This observation should also arise fairly early in the commentary, as Kinbote portrays Zembla as a fantastical land where all bearded Zemblans closely resemble each other, where citizens have taken up the hobby of parachuting, and where a king was able to escape a revolution by crawling through a secret underground passage. Though maybe initially only a conjecture, Zembla’s status as imaginary is solidified if the reader examines the index, which refers to Zembla as “a distant northern land.” This broad and murky definition seems to indicate that Zembla is not a tangible place, as if it was there would probably be a more specific geographical reference. This discovery that Zembla is not a real country encourages readers to further question the legitimacy of Kinbote’s statements, as it appears that Kinbote has an affinity for inventing his own story.
3. John Shade does not necessarily view Kinbote as a friend, but does at least pity Kinbote. Kinbote believes that he and Shade are the best of friends, but Shade seems to have sympathy for Kinbote more than enjoy Kinbote’s company. This is illustrated when Shade is overheard stating in a conversation “That is the wrong word [readers do not know the exact word]. One should not apply it to a person who deliberately peels off a drab and unhappy past and replaces it with a brilliant invention. That’s merely turning a new leaf with the left hand,” (page 238). Kinbote believes that Shade is referring to someone else in town who is crazy, but it’s fairly obvious to readers that he is talking about Kinbote. This would lead to the conclusion that Shade is aware of Kinbote’s unstable mental state, but that he understands Kinbote’s need to create his own fantasyland of Zembla. It is thus that John Shade has sympathy for Kinbote, even though he may not view Kinbote as his best friend.
4. Jakob Gradus is imaginary. For one, Gradus’s many aliases (page 77, see page 77 at once) suggest that he lacks a concrete identity, and hence that he is fictional. Additionally, when describing Gradus’s character Kinbote adds the parenthetical anecdote to one of his statements of “this argument necessitates, I know, a temporary granting to Gradus of the status of man,” (page 279). At first, this little aside appears to be yet another of Kinbote’s insults toward Gradus, but if the reader considers the deeper implications of the statement, Kinbote may be implying that Gradus is not human and thus not real. Kinbote discusses the “human incompleteness” of Gradus later in this same passage, which again suggests that Gradus is not real, but imaginary. This discovery necessarily changes the reader’s interpretation of Shade’s murder, as if Gradus is not real, John Shade’s killer must have been someone else (see discussion below).
* 5. Kinbote fabricated some of the “variants” to Shade’s poem. In the index under the variants entry, some of the citations are parenthetically followed by “K’s contribution, x lines.” This seems to suggest that Kinbote himself added these variations and unpublished lines to Shade’s poem, not Shade himself as readers are initially led to believe. One of the variations that was Kinbote’s “contribution” is the eight-line section that’s discussed on page 99. This variant mentions the Zemblan king’s escape story by referencing a “northern king” who was able to successfully flee the country only because “some forty of his followers that night impersonated him.” It makes sense that this variant is entirely Kinbote’s fabrication, as Shade rarely referenced anything to do with Zembla in the actual poem. Thus, such inventions compromise Kinbote’s credibility as a commentator, and all of the elements of his commentary must now be considered with careful skepticism.
As to the matter of Charles the Beloved’s “crown jewels,” there are several hints in the commentary and index. The crown jewels are comprised of a gemmed scepter, a ruby necklace, and a diamond-studded crown (page 276). We first learn that two Russians, later given the names Niagarin and Andronnikov, are systematically digging through the king’s castle looking for the buried treasure. Knowledge of these actions by the Russians does not worry the king, which indicates that the crown jewels are not hidden in the castle. On page 212, Kinbote divulges to his ex-queen Disa that the jewels are in “their usual hiding place.” The jewels therefore must be located at a secure site, as the king is confident enough to keep the treasure in the same location for a long period of time. Furthermore, Kinbote affirms that the Russians are not looking in the correct place for the jewels when he remarks on pages 243-244 that a helper named Bland assisted the king in hiding the treasure in a “quite unexpected corner of Zembla.” Thus, we now know that the crown jewels are not hidden in the palace but are concealed in a remote location in Zembla. Finally, in the index Kinbote brings readers on a journey from Crown Jewels to Hiding Place to potaynik to taynik all with the use of “see…” or the cross referencing symbol of (q.v.). As occurs frequently in the index, Kinbote sends readers back to the beginning of the cycle by including “see Crown Jewels” in the entry for Taynik. From this referencing, the reader can conclude that the crown jewels are hidden in a place with the name of Taynik, which is attached to the abbreviated “Russ.” and is defined as a “secret place” in its entry in the index. Presumably, Russ. stands for Russia, which seems to contradict Kinbote’s earlier statement that the treasure was located somewhere in Zembla. This apparent inconsistency naturally leaves the reader questioning the geographical relationship between Zembla and Russia, and whether there is any relation between the two terms.
Throughout the commentary, the reader is led to believe that Jakob Gradus, the assassin belonging to the Anti-Karlist Shadow group, killed John Shade. But the more Kinbote refers to him, the less realistic Gradus appears. For example, the fact that Gradus goes by multiple aliases (Jack Degree, Jacques de Grey, Jack d’Argus, etc) gives his character a fictional quality, as if his lack of a consistent name equates to a lack of a concrete identity. Consequently, if Gradus is interpreted to be fictional or imaginary, there would be only one other logical suspect (besides Shade himself) for the murder mystery (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that we believe Kinbote’s version of the murder story). This one suspect is Kinbote, who would have the logical motive of wanting to acquire the poem. The interpretation that Kinbote murdered Shade is supported at the end of the commentary (page 300), where Kinbote admits that “My work is finished. My poet is dead.” In these consecutive sentences of parallel structure, Kinbote seems to be connecting his work with the death of Shade, which would suggest that Kinbote, not the invented Gradus, murdered John Shade.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Zembla as an ultima thule
According to Wikipedia, the term ultima thule is Latin for “farthest north,” and in medieval times was used to refer to any place that was beyond the “borders of the known world.” The first appearance of ultima thule in ancient literature is in the poems of Virgil (the Roman poet who wrote the Aeneid), who used the expression to symbolize a far off land and an unattainable goal. This concept of a mythic land fits nicely with Charles Kinbote’s “Zembla,” which in the index of Pale Fire is defined as “a distant northern land.” Whenever Kinbote brings up the topic of Zembla, he portrays it in a fantastic, almost heavenly manner, and even though he was exiled from Zembla he still holds the place in high regard. In a way, Kinbote’s descriptions make Zembla seem unrealistic. For example, in addition to describing the harmonious political situation during his reign as king, Kinbote mentions on page 75 that the people of Zembla had taken up parachuting as a hobby. Any country where the general populous can take up parachuting for fun must be a place of few worries or obligations. This small anecdote seems rather random and insignificant, which further adds to the country’s portrayal as peaceful and tranquil. Additionally, when Kinbote describes his escape from Zembla during the Zemblan Revolution, he mentions that there were many vacationers on the beach where he met Odon to flee the country. Indeed, it seems a little unlikely that a country could be in the midst of a violent revolution (the extremists were, after all, looking to kill the former king) yet still play host to foreigners on vacation. All of these descriptions of Zembla contribute to its depiction as an ultima thule, a fantastical land of innocent pursuits and great escapes, a land of, to borrow from Ibsen, “castles in the air.”
The next logical question regarding Zembla, after establishing its status as an ultima thule, would concern whether Zembla is a real place where Kinbote was king or whether the country is an invention of Kinbote’s imagination. Since Pale Fire is set in the middle of the twentieth century, the world would have already been thoroughly explored and mapped when Kinbote and John Shade were living in New Wye. Thus, if Zembla was “a distant northern land” that was outside the “borders of the known world,” it probably did not exist on Earth at all. This Zembla could have been an actual place in the time of Virgil, when the outer fringes of the world were still unknown, but in Kinbote’s time there would be no room for such a distant northern land on the map. Consequently, the unknown region where Zembla exists is most likely located completely within Kinbote’s imagination. If this were the case, some of the pieces of the puzzle would appear to fit together better. It would explain how the weak, elegant, and romantic Kinbote was able to be the king of a nation; as if the nation was his complete fabrication he would know best how to rule it. Zembla’s imaginary status would also account for some of the unlikely characteristics and apparent contradictions that Kinbote describes it as possessing – conditions which seem impossible for an actual country to exist in. Kinbote’s Zembla is thus no more tangible than Halvard Solness’s “castles in the air.”
The next logical question regarding Zembla, after establishing its status as an ultima thule, would concern whether Zembla is a real place where Kinbote was king or whether the country is an invention of Kinbote’s imagination. Since Pale Fire is set in the middle of the twentieth century, the world would have already been thoroughly explored and mapped when Kinbote and John Shade were living in New Wye. Thus, if Zembla was “a distant northern land” that was outside the “borders of the known world,” it probably did not exist on Earth at all. This Zembla could have been an actual place in the time of Virgil, when the outer fringes of the world were still unknown, but in Kinbote’s time there would be no room for such a distant northern land on the map. Consequently, the unknown region where Zembla exists is most likely located completely within Kinbote’s imagination. If this were the case, some of the pieces of the puzzle would appear to fit together better. It would explain how the weak, elegant, and romantic Kinbote was able to be the king of a nation; as if the nation was his complete fabrication he would know best how to rule it. Zembla’s imaginary status would also account for some of the unlikely characteristics and apparent contradictions that Kinbote describes it as possessing – conditions which seem impossible for an actual country to exist in. Kinbote’s Zembla is thus no more tangible than Halvard Solness’s “castles in the air.”
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Second rung of the ladder: Kinbote's validity as a literary critic
Something is amiss in the way Dr. Kinbote is interpreting John Shade’s poem. Kinbote attempts to connect obscure facts or occurrences in his life to several lines in the poem, assuming that Shade wrote the lines specifically in reference to subjects or events in which Kinbote has an interest. In a way, Kinbote seems to be reading too far into the poem and drawing obscure conclusions that Shade himself probably never intended. This pattern of Kinbote recklessly making connections to his own life is apparent from the beginning of his analysis, when he claims on page 74 that the phrase “crystal land” in line 12 of Shade’s poem is, “Perhaps an allusion to Zembla, my dear country.” This supposed reference to Zembla launches Kinbote into a discussion of Zemblan kings, which is clearly a subject he is interested in, but also a topic that seems to have nothing to do with the poem. It is odd that Kinbote would make such a specific connection when in the context of the poem, Shade uses “crystal land” to describe the landscape outside his window covered in snow on a winter morning. Even if “crystal land” was a reference to a certain place that Shade was fond of, how could Kinbote be so arrogant as to assume that it alluded to Zembla, a place in which Kinbote himself is interested? Making such an assumption would be similar to reading a poet’s description of some unknown town he viewed in a favorable light and automatically presuming that the poet was writing specifically about the reader’s hometown. These swift and murky conclusions that Kinbote draws seems to compromise his validity as a literary critic.
Kinbote later states that “One is too modest to suppose that the fact that the poet and his future commentator first met on a winter day somehow impinges here on the actual season,” (page 79). Here Kinbote is downplaying the suggestion that Shade drew heavily from images of winter even though the poem was written in the summer solely because Shade had met Kinbote during the winter. Kinbote claims that he is too modest to believe this idea, but even mentioning such a suggestion portrays arrogance. That Shade wrote his poem with the concept winter in mind only because he met one of his literary critics in winter appears to be such a ridiculous, unlikely suggestion that it portrays Kinbote as overly conceited and self centered for even proposing it. Shouldn’t he instead have devoted this sentence to, for example, discussing the similarities between the season of winter and the speaker’s emotions in the poem? Kinbote seems to overly involve his personal life when analyzing this poem, which is not a good habit for a supposedly objective commentator to employ.
Readers also learn on page 80 and 81 that Kinbote had some sort of influence on Shade’s writing of the poem. Kinbote claims that he tried to “saturate” Shade with images and descriptions of Zembla and that he was the one who convinced Shade to write the poem in the first place. It does not seem right that someone who played such an integral role in the composition of a poem should be the one who dissects and analyzes it in the end, especially when the analysis is littered with personal anecdotes that appear to have no relevance to the poem. Kinbote later attempts to back off assertions of his influence on Shade’s poem by stating “Oh yes, the final text of the poem is entirely his.” The off-handed nature of this statement at the end of a paragraph makes it seem rather suspicious – as if Kinbote is denying something that he knows he is guilty of. It all adds up to the relationship between poet and critic appearing to be not quite right. What exactly is the nature of the association between Kinbote and Shade? Did the critic actually play a larger role in writing the poem than he is letting on? Are John Shade and Charles Kinbote perhaps the same person? Such questions will be considered as I read further in Pale Fire.
Kinbote later states that “One is too modest to suppose that the fact that the poet and his future commentator first met on a winter day somehow impinges here on the actual season,” (page 79). Here Kinbote is downplaying the suggestion that Shade drew heavily from images of winter even though the poem was written in the summer solely because Shade had met Kinbote during the winter. Kinbote claims that he is too modest to believe this idea, but even mentioning such a suggestion portrays arrogance. That Shade wrote his poem with the concept winter in mind only because he met one of his literary critics in winter appears to be such a ridiculous, unlikely suggestion that it portrays Kinbote as overly conceited and self centered for even proposing it. Shouldn’t he instead have devoted this sentence to, for example, discussing the similarities between the season of winter and the speaker’s emotions in the poem? Kinbote seems to overly involve his personal life when analyzing this poem, which is not a good habit for a supposedly objective commentator to employ.
Readers also learn on page 80 and 81 that Kinbote had some sort of influence on Shade’s writing of the poem. Kinbote claims that he tried to “saturate” Shade with images and descriptions of Zembla and that he was the one who convinced Shade to write the poem in the first place. It does not seem right that someone who played such an integral role in the composition of a poem should be the one who dissects and analyzes it in the end, especially when the analysis is littered with personal anecdotes that appear to have no relevance to the poem. Kinbote later attempts to back off assertions of his influence on Shade’s poem by stating “Oh yes, the final text of the poem is entirely his.” The off-handed nature of this statement at the end of a paragraph makes it seem rather suspicious – as if Kinbote is denying something that he knows he is guilty of. It all adds up to the relationship between poet and critic appearing to be not quite right. What exactly is the nature of the association between Kinbote and Shade? Did the critic actually play a larger role in writing the poem than he is letting on? Are John Shade and Charles Kinbote perhaps the same person? Such questions will be considered as I read further in Pale Fire.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
What I think I know about Pale Fire
1. The editor of the manuscript, Dr. Charles Kinbote, has published a 999 word poem written by the poet John Shade and has attached additional commentary onto the end of the poem.
2. The poem, called Pale Fire, was written during the last twenty days of Shade’s life and is composed of four cantos.
3. Shade wrote the poem on index cards, with fourteen lines on each card.
4. Dr. Kinbote has had to struggle with Shade’s wife and several publishing companies in order to have the right to transcribe and analyze Pale Fire without anyone else’s consultation.
5. Shade believed in burning first drafts and other unused lines that he had written, but Dr. Kinbote was able to procure several stanzas that were not in the poem’s final version. These lines that didn’t make Shade’s final cut were documented in a short stack of index cards held together with a clip in the same envelope that contained the larger, rubber-banded stack of cards on which the last draft of the poem was written.
As an additional comment, I would say that so far I am a little confused on the structure of Pale Fire – that is, Pale Fire the book. I do not know whether to read the poem in its entirety first or to, like Kinbote suggests at the end of the Forward, read the commentary first and then go back and read the poem. It seems that in either case it will be initially difficult to understand the context of the writing. Perhaps I will instead read the commentary piecemeal and then go back and read the section of the poem it is analyzing. This method too is not without its flaws, as it may be difficult to gain a proper perspective of the work as a whole if it is read is such a fragmented fashion. I suppose that I’ll just have to try each of these approaches to reading Pale Fire and discover what seems to make the most sense. Trial and error is, after all, always an option.
2. The poem, called Pale Fire, was written during the last twenty days of Shade’s life and is composed of four cantos.
3. Shade wrote the poem on index cards, with fourteen lines on each card.
4. Dr. Kinbote has had to struggle with Shade’s wife and several publishing companies in order to have the right to transcribe and analyze Pale Fire without anyone else’s consultation.
5. Shade believed in burning first drafts and other unused lines that he had written, but Dr. Kinbote was able to procure several stanzas that were not in the poem’s final version. These lines that didn’t make Shade’s final cut were documented in a short stack of index cards held together with a clip in the same envelope that contained the larger, rubber-banded stack of cards on which the last draft of the poem was written.
As an additional comment, I would say that so far I am a little confused on the structure of Pale Fire – that is, Pale Fire the book. I do not know whether to read the poem in its entirety first or to, like Kinbote suggests at the end of the Forward, read the commentary first and then go back and read the poem. It seems that in either case it will be initially difficult to understand the context of the writing. Perhaps I will instead read the commentary piecemeal and then go back and read the section of the poem it is analyzing. This method too is not without its flaws, as it may be difficult to gain a proper perspective of the work as a whole if it is read is such a fragmented fashion. I suppose that I’ll just have to try each of these approaches to reading Pale Fire and discover what seems to make the most sense. Trial and error is, after all, always an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)