{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3941", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3941, "subject": "Nabokov: Pale Fire", "messages": 5, "voices": 5, "first": "2003-04-16T15:46:09+00:00", "last": "2003-04-16T21:31:47+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2003-04-16T15:46:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just finished \"Pale Fire\" by Nabokov. I read it because someone said\n\"If you like Wolfe you'll like this,\" and it was mentioned a while back\nwhen we tried to put together a reading list of books that would help you\nappreciate Wolfe (search the archives for \"Wolfe Library\").\n\nI think this book hit the Gene-Wolfe-Pleasure-Centers in my brain more\nthan any other book not written by Wolfe. It's got the ultimate\nunreliable narrator, ambiguous plot puzzles left for the reader to put\ntogether, fun games with the text (the index is great -- I loved the bit\nabout the crown jewels, ghosts, and absolutely beautiful writing. I was\nalso surprised that it was not a hard book to read, certainly not as hard\nas some of Wolfe's.\n\nThe only drawback is it might make you more self-conscous about spinning\ntheories about Wolfe's stories.\n\nAre there any other Nabokov books you would recommend for Wolfe fans (or\njust for me)?\n\n-- Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Terry Lago", "address": "tlago at chass.utoronto.ca" }, "date": "2003-04-16T15:56:49+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I *love* _Pale Fire_...definitely Nabokov's best...at least of what I've\nread so far. I'd say the other must-read is the infamous _Lolita_. It's a\nbeautifully written book (even though the subject matter is rather ugly)\nthough it certainly has fewer puzzles than _Pale Fire_.\n\nT.\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Michael Straight [mailto:straight at email.unc.edu] \nSent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:46 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire\n\n\nI just finished \"Pale Fire\" by Nabokov. I read it because someone said\n\"If you like Wolfe you'll like this,\" and it was mentioned a while back\nwhen we tried to put together a reading list of books that would help you\nappreciate Wolfe (search the archives for \"Wolfe Library\").\n\nI think this book hit the Gene-Wolfe-Pleasure-Centers in my brain more\nthan any other book not written by Wolfe. It's got the ultimate\nunreliable narrator, ambiguous plot puzzles left for the reader to put\ntogether, fun games with the text (the index is great -- I loved the bit\nabout the crown jewels, ghosts, and absolutely beautiful writing. I was\nalso surprised that it was not a hard book to read, certainly not as hard\nas some of Wolfe's.\n\nThe only drawback is it might make you more self-conscous about spinning\ntheories about Wolfe's stories.\n\nAre there any other Nabokov books you would recommend for Wolfe fans (or\njust for me)?\n\n-- Rostrum" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "katbarx at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-04-16T16:10:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Rostrum writes (excerpt, excerpt):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was also surprised that [Pale Fire] was not a hard book to read,\ncertainly not as hard as some of Wolfe's." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alternative view: I tried three times to read PALE FIRE and never\nonce succeeded in getting more than 20 pages into it. It is, to me,\none of the most opaque pieces of writing in the world. Which was a\ndamn shame, as I could see that there's a lot of stuff in there that\nI would enjoy -- would \"tickle the Wolfe pleasure centers\" -- but\nNabokov's writing lies in a range that I can't process for some\nreason.\n\n(I'll try again in a few years, I'm sure. Sometimes things like\nthis suddenly clear up. The first few times I tried to read Charles\nHarness's THE ROSE -- which, by the way, I recommend very, very\nhighly -- I had the same experience; when I turned 30 it suddenly\nbecame a transcendant reading experience. Some things I just have\nto grow into, I guess.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only drawback is it might make you more self-conscous about spinning \ntheories about Wolfe's stories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suppose that some people might consider this a drawback. 8*)\n\nHey, has anyone mentioned THE NAME OF THE ROSE as a rather Lupine\nbook in many ways?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "gordon meuse", "address": "gordanus at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-04-16T18:29:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For those who have either read \"Pale Fire\" or have attempted it and put it \ndown, I highly recommend \"Nabokov's Pale Fire\", by D. Boyd. I admit that I \nread it before I read Pale Fire, but it is such a good read itself and \nquotes extensively from Pale Fire itself. It attempts to solve one of the \nmost complicated literary puzzles ever. His solution is complex and almost \nunbelievable, but very well-documented. You will never read Nabokov the same \never again." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nReply-To: urth at urth.net\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire\nDate: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:10:10 -0700\n\nRostrum writes (excerpt, excerpt):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I was also surprised that [Pale Fire] was not a hard book to read,\ncertainly not as hard as some of Wolfe's." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alternative view: I tried three times to read PALE FIRE and never\nonce succeeded in getting more than 20 pages into it. It is, to me,\none of the most opaque pieces of writing in the world. Which was a\ndamn shame, as I could see that there's a lot of stuff in there that\nI would enjoy -- would \"tickle the Wolfe pleasure centers\" -- but\nNabokov's writing lies in a range that I can't process for some\nreason.\n\n(I'll try again in a few years, I'm sure. Sometimes things like\nthis suddenly clear up. The first few times I tried to read Charles\nHarness's THE ROSE -- which, by the way, I recommend very, very\nhighly -- I had the same experience; when I turned 30 it suddenly\nbecame a transcendant reading experience. Some things I just have\nto grow into, I guess.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The only drawback is it might make you more self-conscous about spinning \ntheories about Wolfe's stories." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suppose that some people might consider this a drawback. 8*)\n\nHey, has anyone mentioned THE NAME OF THE ROSE as a rather Lupine\nbook in many ways?\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nThe new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* \nhttp://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gareth Jelley", "address": "gjelley at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2003-04-16T21:31:47+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Nabokov: Pale Fire", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Michael Straight\"