Chaos Reading discussion

2013 Group Read #7: PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov

GROUP READ DETAILS
*Reading starts: As soon as you're able. I'm allowing a month for this one, in the expectation that people may need some extra "pondering" time. By people, of course, I mean me. If a few people finish before then and are anxious to get into it while it's fresh, we can always start early..
*Discussion Starts: 15 October 2013
*On the day, I'll add a note to the title of this thread to let people know the discussion's started. In the meantime, people can stop by this thread to chat, and read/post bonus material about the book- and there will be plenty this time - but please tag any spoilers until discussion opens.



FACTS & TRIVIA
*Length: 272 pages
*First published: 1962
*Author: Vladimir Nabokov (Russia/US)
*Nabokov (1899-1977) was a Russian-born novelist. His first nine novels were in Russian. He then rose to international prominence as a writer of English prose. He also made serious contributions as both a lepidopterist and chess composer.
*It was ranked at number 53 on the list of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels and number 1 on Larry McCaffery's 20th Century’s Greatest Hits: 100 English-Language Books of Fiction.



*The novel is presented as a 999-line poem titled "Pale Fire", written by the fictional John Shade, with a foreword and lengthy commentary by a neighbor and academic colleague of the poet, Charles Kinbote. Together these elements form a narrative in which both authors are central characters.

*Pale Fire is often cited as an important example of metafiction, and is specifically considered to be a Poioumenon. [Look at me, using a word I just learned! - R]

*Pale Fire has spawned a wide variety of interpretations and a large body of written criticism, which was estimated in 1995 to be over 80 studies. [So there will be lots of discussion topics to draw from! -R]

*The connection between Pale Fire and hypertext was stated soon after its publication; in 1969, the IT researcher Ted Nelson obtained permission from the novel's publishers to use it for a hypertext demonstration at Brown University.

I'm really excited for this group read! I'd like to really encourage everyone to consider joining in for this discussion. From everything I've heard about Pale Fire, there really will be a lot to talk about, so I'm hoping there will be some suitable wacky theories put forward!

I'll post some bonus material as we go, and I hope others will too.

jooooiiinnnnn uuuuuussssssss........

Awesome! Hope youse all enjoy and look forward to the discussion- I will say don't worry, there's a lot of wtf to come but it all ties together at the end :D

Leo X. wrote: "Awesome! Hope youse all enjoy and look forward to the discussion- I will say don't worry, there's a lot of wtf to come but it all ties together at the end :D"

Thanks, Leo. I think we should all just dive in and see what sticks!

Roobs ur totes inspiring a generation of readers with your book group selechshunz!! Cannae wait to hear what ppl think and ur message was dead cute :-)

I placed a hold via the library system this AM Pale Fire.

Ooooh, a Poioumenon.

I've been meaning to read this forever. Time to check the library!

Leo X. wrote: "Roobs ur totes inspiring a generation of readers with your book group selechshunz!! Cannae wait to hear what ppl think and ur message was dead cute :-)"

Awww - Thanks, Leo!
It's taken me a long time to get around to Nabokov, but this seems like a good way to do it :)

Whitney wrote: "Ooooh, a Poioumenon."

I know, right? What a great word.

I own copy...I just need to find it.

Have not yet read a word of PALE FIRE. Very excited to read this.

Karl Hexean wrote: "Have not yet read a word of PALE FIRE. Very excited to read this."

Me too, Karl. I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, and finding it hard to get into the library book I picked up for while I'm waiting..

Ruby wrote: "Karl Hexean wrote: "Have not yet read a word of PALE FIRE. Very excited to read this."

Me too, Karl. I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, and finding it hard to get into the library book I pic..."

I know the feeling. Anticipation can make helpful distractions seem like *work*.

Alright. My copy of the novel has arrived. I've got the poem box edition out.. Let's DO THIS.

Bahahaha! It's the first line, and I've already had to google something. This could take a while... :)

That is a gorgeous edition.

Karl Hexean wrote: "That is a gorgeous edition."

Yep. I aint playin!

Actually, I had to buy the novel separately. Turns out the boxed edition is a reproduction of what John Shade's published poem would've looked like, including the manuscript (on cards, exactly as described in the novel), and some essays focussed solely on the poem. But no actual Nabokov novel!

I'd also like to suggest that if people come across things they think are interesting, or they're unsure about - it'd be great if you could jot them down as you go. That way you can raise them when the discussion starts. I've only just started, but I've already got a few things I'd be keen to ask the group!

For anyone else who's actively googling as they go, I just stumbled across this link while I was looking up something:
(*spoilers*) - http://importantwork.com/text/palefir...

It's a set of somebody's notes on Pale Fire & gives some ideas as to what some of the references might be about. It pointed out a couple of things I had skipped past without a thought - for example, the "black butterflies" in the incinerator scene.

Remember - it's only one person's interpretation, though. It's not necessarily "right" - just an interesting set of theories.

Been busy reading the Silo series but really looking forward to reading this. Ruby, thanks for the link to notes.

My copy has arrived.

Planning on starting this p.m.

I'm giving Google a good thrashing, and really enjoying it so far. Yesterday I had read this bit. It's from very early on in the poem, so not a real spoiler, but I'll spoiler tag it for people anyway:-
(view spoiler)[Poem, Lines 93-98
"The verse book open at the Index (Moon,
Moonrise, Moor, Moral), the forlorn guitar,
The human skull; and from the local Star
A curio: Red Sox Beat Yanks 5-4
On Chapman's Homer, thumbtacked to the door" (hide spoiler)]

I was at a bookshop later in the day and saw this:


If you're interested in finding out whether or not Nabokov was using a real newspaper headline for that part of the poem, see more here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sport...

Ruby wrote: "If you're interested in finding out whether or not Nabokov was using a real newspaper headline for that part of the poem, see more here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sport... ..."

Great article! I love this kind of esoteric wordplay. Another source I highly recommend is Brian Boyd's book on Pale Fire (I know I already mentioned it in another thread).

Maybe this would be a good one to discuss in smaller chunks? Something like opening up the first third of the book to discussion in a week, or something like that? There's just so much in there to talk about.

I'd rather wait until October 15th, and give people a chance to read it through properly themselves and have time to consider things before we start discussion. We can introduce topics gradually once discussion starts.

I know I'm itching to talk about a few things too, but I really don't like those gradual discussions. It puts pressure on for people to read at a set pace. I think, particularly with the way this book is structured, it'd be better to let people read it in their own time and way.

I'd encourage everyone to note down anything that springs to mind that you want to discuss and then raise it when discussion starts on October 15th. In the meantime, if you come across articles that might be helpful/interesting to other people reading along, feel free to post the links here.

Whitney, Brian Boyd's essay "Poem & Pattern" is included with the pictured box set, as is RS Gwynn's "And If My Private Universe Scans Right". Looking forward to getting to both of them after the novel.

Ruby wrote: "I'd rather wait until October 15th, and give people a chance to read it through properly themselves and have time to consider things before we start discussion. We can introduce topics gradually on..."

Yeah, the gradual discussions are definitely a mixed bag. Besides, waiting means I may have a chance to read it again for the discussion.

I have the Boyd essay in one of his books (unread), I'll try and work that in as well. Let us know if the Gwynn is worth tracking down.

Whitney wrote: "I have the Boyd essay in one of his books (unread), I'll try and work that in as well. Let us know if the Gwynn is worth tracking down. ..."

Will do. I've had a little skim, and I'm not enthused, but maybe when I've read a bit more of the novel, I'll have changed my mind.

I have to say, there is a lot more to this novel than I anticipated. It strikes me that the more you look into it, the more levels it has. One thing in favour of doing the discussion chunk by chunk would have been that people could ask for help as they went with some of the references. Still, overall I think it's good with a book like this to let people approach it in their own way. If we can post useful links from time to time that might help too.

My advice to anyone really stuck on a reference would be:
1) Google it. Even if there's no easy answer, there are LOTS of people's notes & theories floating around online (some more believable than others!)
2) Check this thread to see if any of the links have the info you're after.
3) Note it down to ask during the discussion.
4) If you can't wait until the discussion, because you feel it's really affecting your understanding of the story - direct message me. I probably won't know the answer offhand, but I can probably hook you up with someone who does. There are some great minds in this group!

I've been looking up the word "Zembla" and found that it's not particularly simple. Without playing into any particular theory about the novel, here are some facts that go along with this reference:
(view spoiler)[
*Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man (1733), II.217–30, is given as Shade's source for the name of Zembla:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
But where th’extreme of vice, was ne’er agreed:
Ask where’s the north? at York, ’tis on the Tweed;
In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
No creature owns it in the first degree,
But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he;
Even those who dwell beneath its very zone,
Or never feel the rage, or never own;
What happier nations shrink at with affright,
The hard inhabitant contends is right.

*Novaya Zemlya (New Zembla) - is a Russian island, used for administering nuclear tests in the 1950s. It was a very sensitive location during the Cold War, and remains the site of the largest, most powerful nuclear detonation in history - Tsar Bomba. Here's the wiki page -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Z...

Make of that what you will...! :) (hide spoiler)]

[edit] And I've just found a summary which also tells us that Zembla has since been written about in Armadillo, (which of course is still unread on my shelf): http://nabokovsecrethistory.com/news/...

Arrrghhh, I can't find my copy! I know it was there, I took it out to check a couple days ago and put it God knows where. Now there's just a gap on the shelf between Melville and O'Conner.

Ruby wrote: "One thing in favour of doing the discussion chunk by chunk would have been that people could ask for help as they went with some of the references..."

Hmmm, how about a compromise - a 'what do you make of this reference' thread? With the understanding that there are potential spoilers. (Although, honestly, I know some people don't want to know ANYTHING at all about what's to come, but spoiling this book would be like trying to spoil a jigsaw puzzle by discussing individual pieces).

Whitney wrote: "Hmmm, how about a compromise - a 'what do you make of this reference' thread? With the understanding that there are potential spoilers. (Although, honestly, I know some people don't want to know ANYTHING at all about what's to come, but spoiling this book would be like trying to spoil a jigsaw puzzle by discussing individual pieces). .."

I think doing that would just end up starting the discussion early though. There's no way to say what you make of a particular reference without alluding to your assumptions about the novel as a whole. I really don't want people to be swayed to interpret the book in a particular way on first reading.

I was thinking more along lines of just providing the facts for words or phrases that aren't so easily found online- like I've attempted to do with Zembla above. Even looking it up runs you into a minefield of other people's theories and assumptions about the story. There are several ways that people have interpreted the use of the word "Zembla" in the context of Pale Fire, and these are the first things you find when you google the word.



I like the jigsaw puzzle analogy, BTW. I came across this yesterday from a review on New Republic:

Pale Fire is a Jack-in-the-box, a Faberge gem, a clockwork toy, a chess problem, an infernal machine, a trap to catch reviewers, a cat-and-mouse game, a do-it-yourself novel.

It consists of a 999-line poem of four cantos in heroic couplets together with an editor's preface, notes, index, and proof-corrections. When the separate parts are assembled, according to the manufacturer's directions, and fitted together with the help of clues and cross-references, which must be hunted down as in a paper-chase, a novel on several levels is revealed, and these "levels" are not the customary "levels of meaning" of modernist criticism but planes in a fictive space, rather like those houses of memory in medieval mnemonic science, where words, facts, and numbers were stored till wanted in various rooms and attics, or like the Houses of astrology into which the heavens are divided.

Full review here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/bo...

Here is a question that shouldn't spoil 'the story' for anyone, certainly me:

Do you read the poem through, or reference the commentary if not line by line or comment by comment, at least a Canto at a time?

There is a second question for some readers:

The version you have read or are reading, does it have a Introduction or commentary from someone else?

I have the Everyman's Library addition that contains a supplemental Introduction and I believe a supplemental parallel historical Chronology of Nabokov's life. What additions, if any, does the edition of Pale Fire you are reading include?

CD wrote: "Here is a question that shouldn't spoil 'the story' for anyone, certainly me:

Do you read the poem through, or reference the commentary if not line by line or comment by comment, at least a Canto ..."

Hi CD. I actually had that first question written down to ask people too! I don't suppose it matters too much if we start talking about that stuff before we get into the main discussion. But again, it's really hard not to touch on the story..

I'm reading the novel end to end, [intro-poem-notes], so I ignored Kinbote's insistence that the reader start with his notes alongside the poem. I wanted to see what the poem was on its own before reading it alongside Kinbote's version of events. Without getting into a discussion of the story, I would recommend that to others too. I think it's important to the reader's understanding of the novel to get an "unsullied" sense of John Shade's poem.

I ended up with the Pale Fire facsimile set (pictured above) which has helped, as I have a booklet containing just the poem that I can refer to as I go through Kinbote's "notes".

CD wrote: "I have the Everyman's Library addition that contains a supplemental Introduction and I believe a supplemental parallel historical Chronology of Nabokov's life. What additions, if any, does the edition of Pale Fire you are reading include? ..."

I've heard about that chronology and would love to see it. My edition doesn't have any extras. But I really wanted that particular pretty cover ;)

I agree with Ruby. Read the poem, then go back and reread the poem along with Kinbote's notes. When you start reading the notes,though, there are references to other notes &c. I recommend abandoning the linear reading at that point and going where they point.

I have the standard edition, which consists of the forward, the poem, the commentary, and the index.

Whitney wrote: "I agree with Ruby. Read the poem, then go back and reread the poem along with Kinbote's notes. When you start reading the notes,though, there are references to other notes &c. I recommend abandoning the linear reading at that point and going where they point...."

Thanks for that. I had started checking every reference to other notes, but have stopped since some were rather long. I'll take your word for it though, if it's worth zig-zagging between the notes-on-notes.

PS - I hate to point it out, and I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's one thing that I. Just. Can't. Deal. With.
It's a "Foreword". Not a "forward".

Ruby wrote: "PS - I hate to point it out, and I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's one thing that I. Just. Can't. Deal. With.
It's a "Foreword". Not a "forward"..."

Ha! I actually copied this directly (literally cut and pasted) from another group that recently read Pale Fire, where I was checking to see if they mentioned any different editions. I think I shall refrain from returning and sharing your grammatical pet peeve. But I will give you the link if you care to indulge :-)

Whitney wrote: "I think I shall refrain from returning and sharing your grammatical pet peeve. But I will give you the link if you care to indulge :-) ..."

Hehe. If I had to comment every time I saw that particular abuse of the English language, I would never get anything else done ever. :)

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I think I shall refrain from returning and sharing your grammatical pet peeve. But I will give you the link if you care to indulge :-) ..."

Hehe. If I had to comment every time I s..."

That's one I never notice when reading posts (obviously). I suspect that now it will stand out like a neon sign. Thanks for that.

Terribly late to the party, but I've just gotten my hands on a copy and I can't wait to delve into it! I'm looking forward to the discussion! :D

Bianca wrote: "Terribly late to the party, but I've just gotten my hands on a copy and I can't wait to delve into it! I'm looking forward to the discussion! :D"

You are not late, some people are just champing at the bit :-)

Whitney wrote: "That's one I never notice when reading posts (obviously). I suspect that now it will stand out like a neon sign. Thanks for that. .."

I think it's an accent thing. "Foreword" and "forward" sound more similar when spoken with an American accent. In Australia, or the UK, the two words don't sound as much alike. That's probably why it jumps out at me.

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "That's one I never notice when reading posts (obviously). I suspect that now it will stand out like a neon sign. Thanks for that. .."

I think it's an accent thing. "Foreword" and "..."

They actually sound completely alike when when spoken in Murkin. How are they different in Strine?

Whitney wrote: "They actually sound completely alike when when spoken in Murkin. How are they different in Strine?..."

faw-werd vs faw-wood

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "They actually sound completely alike when when spoken in Murkin. How are they different in Strine?..."


faw-werd vs faw-wood
[edit]
FAW-werd vs faw-wood (and slightly less separation between syllables on the latter)

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "They actually sound completely alike when when spoken in Murkin. How are they different in Strine?..."

faw-werd vs faw-wood"

Ah, so. Thank you for the clarification. Next up 'vitamin'! As I recall, we already covered 'aluminum'.

We could forward this discussion by using preface instead of foreword and realizing that there are those who want their usage to be considered definitive and by doing so they're introducing a conflict that is humorously (humourously for you BritEnglish) just what Nabokov is writing about at one level in what will be our 'future' discussion!

My definitive comment of the day is that the big old O.E.D. and a couple of other tomes of words consider that the effective auditory phoneme recognition of both foreword and forward should sound like

(fôr'wrd)

There is some permissible allowance in regional variation that could allow for the 'o' sound similar to a short 'a' sound not unlike what one hears in the word 'caught'. Of course this leads to the horrid problem of how to pronounce it, horrid.

The eliding or dropping of the 'r' sound is not acceptable other than denoted by regional/geographic colloquial accent.

And the Brits haven't a clue how to pronounce aluminum. Oh yeah, they have a different spelling so I guess we will let the added syllables slide. :)

CD wrote: "The eliding or dropping of the 'r' sound is not acceptable other than denoted by regional/geographic colloquial accent...."

Ah, yes. These grammar discussions do descend into minutiae at a fairly rapid pace. So, let me ask the loaded question, who the heck DOESN'T have a regional/geographic colloquial accent? I'm guessing the answer is something like 'someone from Oxford?'

CD wrote: "We could forward this discussion by using preface instead of foreword and realizing that there are those who want their usage to be considered definitive and by doing so they're introducing a confl..."

Except that what we were actually talking about was spelling. It is actually, "Foreword" not "forward". That's definitive. :)

Whitney wrote: "So, let me ask the loaded question, who the heck DOESN'T have a regional/geographic colloquial accent? I'm guessing the answer is something like 'someone from Oxford?' ..."

I actually had to look that up for an author from the US who messaged me in all seriousness:
When is it proper in English slang to use "me" instead of "my."
Ex. "get out me face" instead of "get out of my face."

I went to great lengths to explain that there are any number of British accents, (and provided links to a YouTube series of clips) and that while some texts say that there is a "generic" British accent, those people probably wouldn't be saying "me" at all.
I'm pretty sure he just did a find-and-replace, substituting "me" with "my" regardless.

Everyone has an accent. My point above was that the misspelling of "Foreword" as "forward" stands out to me because the two words don't sound the same in Australia.