As I said in the what are you reading thread, I think the most fascinating book in the world to discuss is Pale Fire by Vladimir Naokov. It's easily my favorite book (the only exception to my highly lasses-faire attitude towards book lending).
Pale Fire consists of the eponymous poem, supposedly written by one of the characters in the book, and the commentary on the poem of a second character. It could be read as a straight comedy (as the commentator is clearly delusional and is putting a ridiculously personal spin on his interpretation of the poem) but there are so many deeper subtexual layers (beyond the "surface" subtext). Add to that the fact that you don't even need to bother with the "real" story since the entire work is symbolic of literature and people's relationship to it. It's an extremely subtle and finely crafted book. I pretty much consider it the perfect novel.
It's such an interesting and engaging intellectual exercise that it seems like every time I go back to read it I have forgotten just how fun it is. It's not just Nabokov's best novel from a literary perspective, it's his funniest novel hands down. You just can't put it down once you start reading. I've read it a dozen times and just talking about it here has sealed the fate of what I'm going to be doing before bed tonight.
I found out about this amazing book by reading a discussion about it on another forum (the old Portal of Evil News site, if anyone remembers that) and I'd love to have a similar discussion here.
From this point forward this thread assumes you have read the book. It will be one giant spoiler from here on out.
I'll start with my personal interpretation of it. It's not particularly novel but I'm not trying to be original. I'd be very interested to hear alternate interpretations.
So to my mind Charles Kintobe is Botkin. Kintobe is just an alter ego the insane Botkin has constructed for himself and as a result of Shade humoring his Kintobe/Zembla bullshit he builds up this elaborate friendship between them in his mind. So effectively there are two layers of delusions going on with the narrator: there's the obvious surface layer where "Kintobe" believes that Shade has included all kinds of allusions in Pale Fire to the Zembla King story that simply aren't there, and then there's the second level where Botkin believes he's Kintobe and all of the allusions he sees are to events that never even happened in the first place (they're all just part of his CWCville-style "happy place"). It's worth noting that Zembla isn't a real country, but neither is the town the novel takes place in real so it's not that big a hint.
Shade was killed by Jack Grey because he mistook him for Judge (I'll look up his name and edit this later), and Botkin just rolled this event into his delusional world (again, like Chris does with CWCville). Especially since it was the death of Shade he had to come up with some suitably romantic delusion for it to be acceptable to him.
Obviously this means that Botkin's relationship with Shade is as much an imposition of his delusional desires as his interpretation of the poem is. Shade was probably just polite to Botkin and humored his insanity.
So, fast version: Botkin is the true author of the commentary, all of the Zembla stuff including his Kinbote identity is delusional and his way of dealing with not having achieved what he wanted in life. Shade wasn't his best friend, never intended any allusions to Zembla in Pale Fire, Botkin stole the manuscript assuming it was about Zembla and was so convinced of this truth that he ends up giving us his comically biased commentary. It's important for him that Zembla be real which is why he's so obsessed with the poem, the publication of which he feels will vindicate this (since in his mind that's what it's about).
Now there's definitely little details unexplained in my version, but here are my thoughts on the other interpretations that try to incorporate some of those:
I really don't like the theories that either Shade or Kintobe wrote the whole thing. Neither of those answers are very satisfying, and they undermine the humor somewhat (which I take as an indicator that they're incorrect). The "Kintobe wrote the whole thing" people have an especially dull interpretation since this means that, effectively, Pale Fire really IS about Zembla (whether the place is or isn't real). The "Shade wrote the whole thing" doesn't work much better, since the worship of Shade in the commentary doesn't match his personality, and it would mean that the intricate Russian wordplay is just there for it's own sake, and not as a hint that the commentator speaks fluent Russian (which Kinbote and Botkin do, but not Shade). They're both popular theories, though, so maybe I'm missing something. That's why I love this fucking book so much.
I completely reject the theories that involve the ghosts of various characters somehow subconsciously influencing what other characters write because the evidence is so cryptic and obscure and the result is so unsatisfying. I can't help but feel if that was the intent there'd be more hints than allusions to poems about ghosts and pointing out that Nabokov wrote a completely separate story in which ghosts influence people. It's tempting, if unfair, to compare reading that much into the text with what Kinbote does with Pale Fire.
So yeah there's my boring take on it: I think the cigar is a penis. I'm not trying to dazzle you with my literary insights though, just provoke a conversation about the best book ever written, ever, ever. There are much deeper readings with interesting arguments behind them, but I think my "straightforward" (for Pale Fire) interpretation is close to the authorial intent. For what that's worth. It's definitely incomplete though; every time I reread the book I find new bits I missed.
Pale Fire consists of the eponymous poem, supposedly written by one of the characters in the book, and the commentary on the poem of a second character. It could be read as a straight comedy (as the commentator is clearly delusional and is putting a ridiculously personal spin on his interpretation of the poem) but there are so many deeper subtexual layers (beyond the "surface" subtext). Add to that the fact that you don't even need to bother with the "real" story since the entire work is symbolic of literature and people's relationship to it. It's an extremely subtle and finely crafted book. I pretty much consider it the perfect novel.
It's such an interesting and engaging intellectual exercise that it seems like every time I go back to read it I have forgotten just how fun it is. It's not just Nabokov's best novel from a literary perspective, it's his funniest novel hands down. You just can't put it down once you start reading. I've read it a dozen times and just talking about it here has sealed the fate of what I'm going to be doing before bed tonight.
I found out about this amazing book by reading a discussion about it on another forum (the old Portal of Evil News site, if anyone remembers that) and I'd love to have a similar discussion here.
From this point forward this thread assumes you have read the book. It will be one giant spoiler from here on out.
I'll start with my personal interpretation of it. It's not particularly novel but I'm not trying to be original. I'd be very interested to hear alternate interpretations.
So to my mind Charles Kintobe is Botkin. Kintobe is just an alter ego the insane Botkin has constructed for himself and as a result of Shade humoring his Kintobe/Zembla bullshit he builds up this elaborate friendship between them in his mind. So effectively there are two layers of delusions going on with the narrator: there's the obvious surface layer where "Kintobe" believes that Shade has included all kinds of allusions in Pale Fire to the Zembla King story that simply aren't there, and then there's the second level where Botkin believes he's Kintobe and all of the allusions he sees are to events that never even happened in the first place (they're all just part of his CWCville-style "happy place"). It's worth noting that Zembla isn't a real country, but neither is the town the novel takes place in real so it's not that big a hint.
Shade was killed by Jack Grey because he mistook him for Judge (I'll look up his name and edit this later), and Botkin just rolled this event into his delusional world (again, like Chris does with CWCville). Especially since it was the death of Shade he had to come up with some suitably romantic delusion for it to be acceptable to him.
Obviously this means that Botkin's relationship with Shade is as much an imposition of his delusional desires as his interpretation of the poem is. Shade was probably just polite to Botkin and humored his insanity.
So, fast version: Botkin is the true author of the commentary, all of the Zembla stuff including his Kinbote identity is delusional and his way of dealing with not having achieved what he wanted in life. Shade wasn't his best friend, never intended any allusions to Zembla in Pale Fire, Botkin stole the manuscript assuming it was about Zembla and was so convinced of this truth that he ends up giving us his comically biased commentary. It's important for him that Zembla be real which is why he's so obsessed with the poem, the publication of which he feels will vindicate this (since in his mind that's what it's about).
Now there's definitely little details unexplained in my version, but here are my thoughts on the other interpretations that try to incorporate some of those:
I really don't like the theories that either Shade or Kintobe wrote the whole thing. Neither of those answers are very satisfying, and they undermine the humor somewhat (which I take as an indicator that they're incorrect). The "Kintobe wrote the whole thing" people have an especially dull interpretation since this means that, effectively, Pale Fire really IS about Zembla (whether the place is or isn't real). The "Shade wrote the whole thing" doesn't work much better, since the worship of Shade in the commentary doesn't match his personality, and it would mean that the intricate Russian wordplay is just there for it's own sake, and not as a hint that the commentator speaks fluent Russian (which Kinbote and Botkin do, but not Shade). They're both popular theories, though, so maybe I'm missing something. That's why I love this fucking book so much.
I completely reject the theories that involve the ghosts of various characters somehow subconsciously influencing what other characters write because the evidence is so cryptic and obscure and the result is so unsatisfying. I can't help but feel if that was the intent there'd be more hints than allusions to poems about ghosts and pointing out that Nabokov wrote a completely separate story in which ghosts influence people. It's tempting, if unfair, to compare reading that much into the text with what Kinbote does with Pale Fire.
So yeah there's my boring take on it: I think the cigar is a penis. I'm not trying to dazzle you with my literary insights though, just provoke a conversation about the best book ever written, ever, ever. There are much deeper readings with interesting arguments behind them, but I think my "straightforward" (for Pale Fire) interpretation is close to the authorial intent. For what that's worth. It's definitely incomplete though; every time I reread the book I find new bits I missed.
Last edited:
