Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

Share your thoughts, feelings, questions, reactions, etc..........I am looking forward to this book immensely!

I started last night, and I'm finished with the Prequel and the Cantos, so...1/3 of the way through, I guess? It's absolutely hysterical, I love it. The prequel made me laugh my ss off, especially the bit where he digresses, talking about how everyone else was 'jealous' of his special relationship to Spade.

I was going to ask how one reads it: the cantos and then the notes or or the notes as one reads the cantos? But from ZanKnits's comment, I assume that means we read it cover to cover?

I'm a bit intimidated by the format, but I'm hoping it is "hysterical" and enjoyable.

I also have to finish a book I'm in the middle of before I begin this, so it will be a week or so. But I'm excited about it!

I'm reading cover to cover (mine's on my Kindle, but it doesn't have a table of contents so it's too hard to flip back and forth). I go to school with a bunch of pretentious artsy types - myself included - so it's good to see Nabokov taking the piss out of all of us.

I read it straight through but did occasionally flip back to the referenced lines in the poem, until I realized that in essence, the commentary HAS NOTHING TO DO with the poem.

I thought it was funny, clever, yet tedious in many ways. I will be curious to know what everyone's interpretation of 'reality' is? I feel like I know 'the truth' but I have some lingering doubts.

Some questions (whinch could be construed as spolierish so be warned)

1.) Is Zembla a real place? If not, why then is it mentioned, albeit briefly, in Shade's Canto 4?

2.) If Zembla is real - Is Kinbote really the exiled king or just the mysterious, presumably deranged Botkin?

3.) Who is Gradus? If merely John Grey are the details of his journey (including the vivid GI distress) a total fabrication then?

I feel like this is sacreligious or something, given Nabokov's reputation but I think Arthur Phillips The Egyptologist is a better version of this sort of thing. Highly recommend it, if you liked Pale Fire.

I've only read the prequel so far this time (I've read Pale Fire before), but when I read it last I'd read a few lines of the poem, check to see if there was commentary. If so I'd read the commentary, then back to the poem. That seemed to work for me, to keep the two parts connected, and that's how I'm going to read it this time. It also keeps the perspective going on how his delusional mind works.

I'm so glad people have started posting on this thread now--I was restraining myself from getting into Pale Fire even though I am soo ready for some laughs.

I read the prequel (it's called the Forward in my edition) then the first canto and then the commentary relating to it though I agee with jhowell in that the commentary has little connection to the poem. Kinbote's rants and digressions are very funny. As to the questions posed by jhowell I'm only a third of the way through the book so I will have to reserve judgement until I have finished.

What a wonderful choice. I love just tumbling into something I know nothing about. It seems so fitting as I struggle with flipping back to the end notes for help fully understanding the allusions and historical references in two heavily annotated versions of The Inferno. In this book, I instead read the footnotes, occasionally flipping forward to see how ridiculously tenuous their links to the contexts actually are!

Kinbote tells you how to read this. Commentary first. And I would also suggest when reading the notes to read them in the order Kinbote asks; so if in the note to Line 192 he asks you to refer to the note for Line 300 then that's the note to read next.

#9 - Interesting! He does indeed tell you how to read it -- you know, I read that, thought about it for a minute, and then dismissed it. Too stuck in my anal linear ways. I wonder now how the experience would have been different if I had listened to the wacky professor? Do you end up with the same conclusions, anyway?

I think Kinbote tells us that only because he's egocentric and in his world the poem is all about him. In his world, the commentary could exist without the poem. It wouldn't have been surprising if he had said don't bother reading the whole poem--just read the parts referred to in my commentary.

Do we trust Kinbote's advice? Do we want to listen to him?

Kinbote's suggested reading order: Foreword, note991; line735; line86; note1-4; line181-182; note998 (what is the odd dark word?); note12; note39-40; Timon of Athens, Act IV Sc 3; note962; note894; note17 and note29; note 596; note27; note34; note39; note42; note70; note149; note171; note79; note130; note47; note691; note49; note549; note57; note61; and so on
or something like that.

Question: Is Pale Fire's motto from Boswell added by Nabokov or Kinbote?

I read the forword last night and it made me wonder if I should follow Kimbote's instructions of how to read it.
I also wondered whether these are Kimbotes instructions or Nabokov's.

5: Interesting questions.

I say Zembla is a real place in the novel, just as real as New Wye, Wordsmith and Utana. But Zembla also has a literary history---like Antipode, or Liliput.

I just started this and must say that I've already seen cutesy, self-aware self-reflective instances and language. I guess if I'm going to read Nabokov I just need to put up with it and take it in the playful spirit Nabokov no doubt wishes us to take it. I'm not sure that's his sole motive for writing this way though. Oh well, another intrusive narrator becoming part (all?) of the story. I reckon I should just loosen up and let it wash over me.

semckibbin, be careful associating the names and places in this book with other fantastical names and places. I don't want to find out that I am actually reading an F&SF piece here. You know, made up history, made up plots, made up characters, all signs of Fantasy and Science Fiction.

#14 - I think I agree with you about Zembla being real. I think if it were a fictional place, then in comparison perhaps Nabokov would not have chose fictionesque names for the "real" places (New Wye, Appalachia, Wordsmith, etc.)

The foreward is definately Kinbote's. I think Zembla is a real place, too. Although, now that I think of it, because I doubt very much Kinbote's historic claims. In a work of fiction, how much is 'truth' and how much is insanity, when it's all made up?

15: Hi, geneg. Thanks for turning me on to this group.

"...be careful associating the names and places in this book with other fantastical names and places."

Gotcha. BTW, this is a work of fiction so the history, plot and characters will be invented by Nabokov.

Okay, so I've just finished it. I won't post any more to avoid spoiling everyone until we're all done, but the last few pages (not the index, but the final parts of the commentary) are so good. I love Nabokov.

semckibbin, My remarks about SF come from an ongoing battle I'm having with the SF group. We read a murder mystery as a group read named Farthing set in England just after WWII ends with Nazi Germany occupying Europe. Because of this little touch of "alternative history" which seems to me to be what all novels are to one extent or another, the SF people are claiming this work as SF. How they make this leap, from the standard domain of the fiction writer to SF, is beyond me. I think alternative history, as generally understood, is a genre of its own, not SF.

With Nabokov's general goofiness I'm surprised the SF crowd hasn't tried to claim him as one of theirs.

Thanks for the words of encouragement ZanKnits. I'm a bit more than half-way through it and I must admit I'm struggling. There are bouts of hilarity (mostly Kinbote's relationship with Sybil) that keep me plodding, but I'm finding the whole Zembla saga a little too esoteric for me. Maybe I should polish up on my Russian history.

#21 - I felt similar to you re: the whole Zembla schtick - after a while it was more tedious than funny. I did like the book as a whole - but parts fell flat for me. The ending is great though -- forge on!

Thank goodness #21 - I thought I was all alone in finding this novel difficult. I love it when Kinbote is being precious and making the commentary all about himself. He's an absolute narcissist but my eyes glaze over in the pages about Zembla.

And #22 - I have been contemplating ditching Pale Fire for a while at least, but I will keep on with it just to experience the ending.

I agree - I love his narcissism, but I don't care much for the blow-by-blow account of Zemblan history. You don't need to be super-aware of Russian history to understand anything, though Cecilturtle - I mean, besides the whole "monarchy toppled by a soviet (or, rather, soviet-backed) populace". After the book, I read the wikipedia page on Pale Fire which helped to clarify a few things about the ending (mostly Nabokov's biographical information, which is helpful to know).

Also, did anyone catch the bit about 'Hurricane Lolita' yet?

King Alfin crashes his plane in December. Since Zembla is most likely north of the Arctic Circle wouldnt the flight have occurred in total darkness? No pics for Charles X to see.

"What emperor?" Nice.

#24 Not up to 'Hurricane Lolita' yet but noticed 'Professor Pnin'.

Well, I'm glad I made it through. I'll definitely be benefiting from your commentaries however. I suppose part of the problem is that I read Ada or Ardor and Despair and saw Lolita, so I was taken aback by the structure and the topic. I think there is some definite value in reading the commentary first, but I'm not sure it makes it easier to understand!
Zanknits, thanks for the tip on reading wikipedia - it did help gel things for me. I'm not sure this is a novel I would recommend however. There are others that I preferred from Nabokov.

What do you all think of Nabokov's vocabulary? Do you find it pretentious or do you think there is a reason for his using many of them?

In reading the novel, did you blow past the words you didnt know or did you look them up?

crined, pertussal, contrapuntal, chrysoprase, crepitation, Bombycilla, ingle, adeling, luciolo, virilia, prolix

-28 I noticed that some of them are medical (pertussal, crepitation) or scientific names. I think in a way the diction is intentionally pretentious, to highlight Kinbote's high opinion of himself, but I also think that some words, no matter how archaic, are almost indispensable once you know them. There really is no other word to describe the aural qualities of crepitation, for example.

I started looking all the words up in a dictionary but there were so many I soon gave up. In fact, I couldn't locate a meaning for some words - luciolo being one of them. Kinbote's sesquipedalian vocab shows the reader what an absolute pretentious, irritating prat he is. It is no wonder that the Shades and his colleagues avoid him.

I read it on my Kindle, which has a built-in dictionary :) I think it helped the pseudo-scholarly tone of the piece.

Just finished! Hooray! I decided to go with the flow and just enjoy Nabokov's wonderful word play so that the final fifty or so pages of the novel were quickly finished. The structure of Pale Fire is one of the strangest I've come across though I'll refrain from any more comments until everyone has finished.

#28> I think he loved language. He uses it fully in all his works that I have read. I revel in it!

I like that the first reference is to the "pale fire" glowing from the incinerator....think it is a hint to the reader?

#33 - Revel, huh? Do you roll upon them as a grateful mongrel on a spot of turf fouled by a Great Dane? I've been looking to slip that into conversation. I agree; the extensive vocabulary is part of Nabokov's style, one that Shade AND Kinbote (and every other Nabokov narrator) share.

#30 - luciola was bugging me, too. luci- is Latin for light. ola is a Latin suffix meaning little, small. So there you go, google to the rescue. However, I think there is some association with lucida, the brightest star in a constellation.

Nabokov, to borrow the words of Dr Kinbote, is "a double treat of revel and revelation".

#34-- If the roots of luciola mean small light, maybe it's another way of saying pale fire. (I don't recall the context it was used in).

#34 in French "luciole" is the firefly - it would also fit in with Nabokov's passion for butterflies (although technically they're beetles).

I am moved by Nabokov's lament about the afterlife after his daughter's death. I love the "revel and revelation" comment above. I will use that in the future as a great way to very briefly summarize Nabokov!

#37 - Nice! It's a slightly different spelling but now I can quickly draw the connection between the "fireflys" attending Queen Blenda's death (and Charles X fear of her ghost) with this line from p.289 of the Vintage edition: "...I found myself enriched with an indescribable amazement as if informed that fireflies were making decodable signals on behalf of stranded spirits..."

And while we're speaking of fireflies and signals has anyone tried to decode the message given by another light: pata ata lane pad not ogo old wart alan ther tale feur far rant lant tal told

Nabokov loves puzzles, which is another part of his style.

Ah, Nabokov! Unequaled use of language,tongue in cheek humor, and creatively commenting on so much of life and death. This is a combination of prose and poetry which will confound and delight. This is, I believe, the third work of Nabokov's which I have read and each tome is completely different and yet fabulous. Can you tell I like his writing?

What are your thoughts on Pale Fire as a poem? Is it that different from what Frost and Stevens were doing? There are parts of it I like: the first twelve lines and

And then the gradual and dual blue
As night unites the viewer and the view,

.....Infinite foretime and
Infinite aftertime: above your head
They close their giant wings, and you are dead.

How not to panic when you're made a ghost:
Sidle and slide, choose a smooth surd, and coast,
Meet solid bodies and glissade right through,
Or let a person circulate through you.

Oh, and BTW, jhowell, the argument for Botkin writing this whole thing seems pretty weak to me.

I am not a big poetry fan and certainly not qualified to critique - but I agree I thought the poem was pretty good esp. musings on death, and when he and his wife were up waiting for their daughter to come home that night.

#41 - I don't think Kinbote/Botkin wrote the poem either. I was questioning Kinbote'd identity. Is he this known deranged man Botkin? And if so, who exactly is Botkin -- it wasn't clear to me? Or is Kinbote truly an exile from Zembla? I can't entirely make up my mind.

Anyone?

-41, 42 Apparently Nabakov himself says that the commentary was written by Botkin, and since he's the author I guess he would know, though I wouldn't put it past him to lie for his own amusement. To me it seems clear that you really cannot conclude if Zembla or Kinbote is real or who was the actual author of the commentary from the book alone. And isn't that really the point?

43: To whom did VN say that Botkin is the commentator?

*crickets*

By the way, I have the Vintage International edition and what the hell is the point of the cover art? Some old man squatting with binoculars. I suppose you can imagine it is Kinbote spying on Shade but Kinbote is not an old man (he's 44) and he has a beard and he didnt use binoculars. Very curious.

From wikipedia - Nabokov himself endorsed this reading, stating in an interview in 1962 (the novel's year of publication) that Pale Fire "is full of plums that I keep hoping somebody will find. For instance, the nasty commentator is not an ex-King of Zembla nor is he professor Kinbote. He is professor Botkin, or Botkine, a Russian and a madman."

Thanks, jlelliott!

>9 semckibbin:, >11 arubabookwoman:, I did not trust Kinbote's instructions for reading the book. I read the cantos (and enjoyed them very much) and then began the commentary. I started referencing the other commentary as it came up, but I don't think that's how it's meant to be read. The story was out of order and I didn't understand the subsequent comments.

I am only halfway through the commentary but I'll probably finish the book tonight. I want to avoid spoilers so I haven't read pat message 19 on this message board. Is this the same thread for spoilers? I am not sure.

At this point, I'm torn between thinking Pale Fire is genius because of how Nabokov set it up and being completely annoyed by Kinbote's self-conceit and cluelessness.

I finished the book. As some people have already mentioned, the Zemblan saga did feel tedious after a while, although I still feel Nabokov’s invention in this novel was genius. I didn’t love reading it, but I’m glad I did!

>28 semckibbin:, I didn’t bother to look up words, but did not find it a turn off. I wasn’t loving the book enough (see above comment) to take that kind of time. I think it just added to Kinbote’s conceited character.

>46 jlelliott:, Thanks for the reference to Wikipedia. I’m very confused what that means (who is “Botkin”), but it just goes to show that there is way more to this little novel than I understood! I want to just enjoy it as a joke, making fun of those of us who are reading too much out of poetry. But then Nabokov’s own comments make me think that I’m still really missing something. Is that just a joke?

#49 - I pretty much agree with your assessment and feelings about the book. Although I puzzled over this talk of 'Botkin' - I felt I wasn't given enough info to really come away with Kinbote's "real" identity. I only put it together after reading other material. But apparently this book can be read on many different levels, following Nabokov's countless hints and references. I didn't do that.

#9-11 - I think Kinbote's instructions are just one of a myriad of ways you could read this. I would love to be ZanKnits and read this electronically ... I hope the links were embedded so you could keep skipping around and totally lose track of the page order!

#15, #21-24, #28-31 - For me the self-aware self-reflective instances and language really added to the puzzle of the text ... who is Kinbote, is he real or invented by John Shade, is he Botkin, has he been driven mad by the incessant noise of the amusement park, does the poem exist without Kinbote's notes ... oh the list is endless.

I think the tediousness of the Zemblan history lessons is intentional and, by tempting the reader to skim, they make the puzzle even more maddening in retrospect. I keep asking myself what I might have missed.

I have the same suspicions about the vocabulary. I tried to faithfully look everything up but quit about halfway through. Again, I wonder if there were some twists that would have been revealed if I had dug a little deeper. Another reason I'm jealous of ZanKnits.

#30-37 - In some ways I think the fireflies, bringing decodable signals on behalf of stranded spirits, are in fact the real Pale Fire of the title. John, Sibyl and Hazel shine through even though Kinbote tries to twist the poem to make it about Zembla.

I read Pale Fire as a commentary on commentary and how it is really just the ghost/shade/mirror/pale fire of the actual thing. Crazily, I think Kinbote's comments on line 549 about God's presence "a faint phosphorescence at first, a pale light in the dimness of bodily life, and a dazzling radiance after it" rather describe my reaction to the book. A faint phosphorescence in the introductory notes (umm...could be interesting), a pale light in the poem (an interesting poem with some bright spots of allusion and wordplay) and then the dazzling radiance of the notes and index which bring it all together brilliantly. Eerily, I also found the nonlinear ways the book can be read and infinite ways it can be dissected make the book seem like it was written to exploit the full capabilities of hypertext, Wikipedia and the whole interlinked universe of today.

#35 - Socialpages, you found the words that captured it for me!

Ten things I loved about Pale Fire

1. The obvious lie about proofreading following "Insert before a professional" in the introduction.

2. Adding at least 50 words to my vocabulary (before I lost count) and finally finding a use for the anagram tool in my eDictionary.

3. Playing word golf in the index. (I can't believe I've never heard of this game before!)

4. Contemplating whether line 1 was intended as line 1000 as well and then noticing it wasn't reprinted as such in the text.

5. Kinbote's undaunted narcissism throughout echoing his belief that "without my notes Shade's text simply has no human reality at all ... to this statement my dear poet probably would not have subscribed, but, for better or for worse, it is the commentator who has the last word."

6. Kinbote's unwillingness to do even the most rudimentary research ... from identifiying the Common Toothwort to tracking down the magazine article recounting Mrs. Z's experiences in the afterlife.

7. Kinbote's admission in the notes to line 550 that his notes to line 12 are "distorted and tainted by wishful thinking" and his request that the reader ignore them ... because correcting the error would require reworking the note and he has no time for such stupidities.

8. The Institute of Preparation for the Hereafter in Canto III ...

While snubbing gods, including the big G
Iph borrowed some peripheral debris
From mystic visions; and it offered tips
(The amber spectacles for life's eclipse)
How not to panic when you're made a ghost:
Slide and slide, chose a smooth surd and coast,
Meet solid bodies and glissade right through,
Or let a person circulate through you.

9. The irony of life everlasting based on a misprint in Canto III ...

But all at once it dawned on me that this
Was the real point, the contrapuntal theme;
Just this: not text, but texture; not the dream
Not flimsy nonsense, but a web of sense.
Yes! It sufficed that I in life could find
Some kind of link-and-bobolink, some kind
Of correlated pattern in the game,
Plexed artistry, and something of the same
Pleasure in it as they who played it found.

And even more so, Kinbote's irritation with the passage.

10. The knowledge that Kinbote may turn up "on another campus, as an old, happy, healthy heterosexual Russian, a writer in exile" or "pander to the simple tastes of theatrical critics and cook up a stage play, an old-fashioned melodrama with three principals: a lunatic who intends to kill an imaginary king, another lunatic who imagines himself to be that king, and a distinguished old poet who stumbles by chance into the line of fire ..."

Plus, I finally understand why Pale Fire is the book someone would chose to take to a desert island (per the LT touchstone explanation) ... I feel like I could read it at least five more times ...

- going through the cantos and notes in different orders to see which strands of the story come forward and which recede

- trying my hand at interpreting the character and place names and figuring out which are anagrams of which

- mapping Zembla based on the text and seeing if it corresponds to any recognizable place

- keeping a chronology of both Zemblan and Shadean events and seeing what emerges and what eerie coincidences the numbers hold

- puzzling out the Botkin thing

... and I'm sure these readings would spawn five more reasons to read it again.

All in all, I'm thrilled to have discovered this book. Thanks to all who voted it up to the top of the list. (I can't believe I wanted to read Buddenbrooks instead.) Reliving Pale Fire has kept me entertained as I back up ten years of photos to DVDs but has also probably given me too much time to share way too many thoughts ... sorry for running on, but I just loved this book!

tracyfox, I'm so glad you loved it so much! I can tell from your comments that you would love to find all the details in it. There are so many meanings I know I missed.

I think I still prefer the "commentary on commentary and how it is really just the ghost/shade/mirror/pale fire of the actual thing" reading (well put), and I don't care to find the others! I personally shudder to think of rereading it. I really disliked it as a whole, although I'm certainly glad I did read it once.

52: "keeping a chronology of both Zemblan and Shadean events and seeing what emerges and what eerie coincidences the numbers hold"

Here's a simple one: Shade, Kinbote and Gradus were all born the same day, July 5. Gradus and Kinbote born in the same year 1915, too.

Finished at last. Although I enjoyed Nabakov's interesting and clever book there is a lot I did not understand. When I have more time I would like to reconsider this work probably with the help of Wilkipedia and other people's comments. I am glad I read it.

>54 semckibbin: I caught two of the three conincident birthdays, but missed Shade! I sensed there was a whole strand dealing with numbers but for me this would be the most difficult read ... a future challenge for sure!

Any and all, I have never read anything by Nabokov before and do intend to read Lolita in the next few months. (In the past I had always been put off by the pedophilia aspect ...). What else would you Nabokov fans recommend?

>56 tracyfox: I have only read (in addition to Pale Fire) Nabokov's complete short stories. They were excellent. I have also avoided reading Lolita for the pedophilia aspect, but I've been told it's a wonderful read despite the subject matter.

Don't avoid Lolita. It is absolutely marvellous. I put off reading it too for many years for the same reason, but the book from is not full of child sex scenes but full of wonderful language. Humbert is so witty, urbane and articulate that you almost forget he is a pedophile. If you like Nabakov's style of word play then I think you will like Lolita. I do remember shielding the cover from curious eyes on the morning and afternoon commute because of the book's reputation.

One of the parts I liked was when the inattentive Gradus went to the Lavender's villa in Lex in his attempt to find the King. Kinbote's description of the scene went far beyond what Gardus could ever notice; and since Kinbote/Charles had been there he could offer far more detail. It's amusing that Kinbote's ardor for Gordon K. puts him through 5 costume changes (leopardskin loincloth, ivy, black bathing trunks, tennis shorts, back to leopardskin) before leaving Gordon naked on his back by the pool---the whole purpose for Kinbote taking Gradus to the pool.

Another part I liked is this beautiful sentence that VN has Kinbote write which conveys so well his agitation and obsessiveness: "From behind a drapery, from behind a box tree, through the golden veil of the evening and through the black lacery of night, I kept watching that lawn, that drive, that fanlight, those jewel-bright windows."

I made a significant dent in this book yesterday. When I finish it will be the second Nabokov I will have read, after Bend Sinister. It seems safe to say that Nabokov, for whatever reason, enjoys sprinkling his works with lots of eroticism, both ways, no less.

Is it a secret that the narrator is the exiled King of Zembla? Or, with about seventy pages to go, is it too soon to conclude this?

I thought it was interesting when the head of the department at Wordsmith said Shade's poem was being edited by someone who was not qualified. A slap at the narrator, no doubt.

The index is a real hoot. I have a book that is 300+ pages with references in the index to usages on pages as high as 900. Now what does that mean?

I'm a bit more at ease with what Nabokov is doing in his writing than I was when I read Bend Sinister and it doesn't seem as pretentious and hoity-toity. I don't bother with any of the jokes, tricks, etc. buried in the text and don't have a literary spade to dig them out. I have neither the time nor the inclination.

Boy he sure doesn't have any respect for totalitarians, does he?

60: "I have a book that is 300+ pages with references in the index to usages on pages as high as 900. Now what does that mean?"

The index matches Kinbote's notes to the corresponding Line Number in Shade's poem---which of course is 999-lines long. Thus looking at the first subject in the index (for A., Baron) I can find the subject in Kinbote's note to Line 286. It is very unusual to include editorial comments and background info in an index.

Kinbote wrote 130 separate notes on the poem. The ones dividing the work in two being the note to line 417-421 and the note to Line 426.

I just finished and I see that the index matches the line numbers of the poem rather than the page number. I guess I was looking for games everywhere.

I enjoyed this book very much. There is quite a bit of humor, including some stabs at the academy itself.
This one, unlike Bend Sinister makes me want to read more Nabokov.

Okay, now off to bonnie blighty and the Forsytes. A more straightforward read, I hope.

I read the same copy of Pale Fire I read in college in 1970, and it has my notes in the margins. My notes indicate that the professor seemed to think that Kinbote is going to commit, or is at least contemplating suicide. This is based on the final few paragraphs of the commentary. Any thoughts?

63: From the interview conducted in Sept 1966 for Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature reprinted in Strong Opinions, p.74:

"I think it so nice that the day on which Kinbote committed suicide (and he certainly did after putting the last touches to his edition of the poem) happens to be both the anniversary of Pushkin's Lyceum and that of "poor old man Swift" 's death, which is news to me (but see variant in note to line 231). In common with Pushkin, I am fascinated by fatidic dates."

The Lyceum anniversary is Oct 19, 1811.

Kinbote's note to line 493 seems to reject Hamlet's rub and decision against self-slaughter. I would imagine John Shade also believed there is no prohibition against suicide, nothing that could be characterized as sin anyway; because that would prevent his reuniting with Hazel.

Wow! Even in one sentence from one interview there is another possibility I never considered, another allusion I didn't get (Pushkin's Lyceum) and yet another reason to visit my OED (fatidic)! I can see how this might get on some people's nerves...

Of course as a somewhat arrogant reader, I have to keep checking myself and stifling my natural tendency to believe that if I did't find it in the text on my own, the author wasn't completely effective in what he or she was trying to achieve.

In the text, commentary to line 1000

"Yes better stop. My notes and self are petering out. Gentlemen, I have suffered very much, and more than any of you can imagine. I pray for the Lord's benediction to rest on my fellow countrymen. My work is finished. My poet is dead.

"'And you, what will you be doing with yourself, poor King, poor Kinbote?' a gentle young voice may inquire.

"God help me, I trust, to rid myself of any desire to follow the example of two other characters in this work. I shall continue to exist. I may assume other disguises, other forms, but I shall try to exist...."

The question Nabokov leaves us with is whether Kinbote has talked himself out of suicide.

-66 Kinbote's apparently imaginary, so maybe his "suicide" would be concomitant with an increase in mental health for Botkin, and vice versa.

I tend to think that Kinbote is a tad too much of a narcissist to seriously contemplate suicide. He just likes the attention.

I finally finished this book, way behind everyone else. I have been enjoying reading all the comments. This book is clever and humorous, but at the beginning I could not really connect with the story or the characters. However, I forged ahead and ultimately became involved and interested in the story. I think at first I was a little put off by the style of the book between the poem and the commentary; however, I got used to it and began to enjoy the story. This was my first book by Nabakov and I am glad that it was chosen for this group read.
--BJ