Sign in with Facebook
Sasha's Reviews > Pale Fire
Pale Fire
by
by
This is the second book by Nabokov I've read, and they're both essentially murder mysteries. Is that what Nabokov is? A writer of murder mysteries?
Pale Fire and Lolita both also feature unreliable narrators and slightly too much cleverness. And with Pale Fire, in particular...if you strip away the trickiness, what's left? (The answer: Prisoner of Zenda is left.) But the trickiness is the point, you say. Doesn't this smell just a little bit like self-indulgence, though? Nabokov writes for writers; his books are meant to be compared to other books. By itself, Pale Fire is "mostly an exercise in agility � or perhaps in bewilderment" (Time, 1962). Its pleasure comes from seeing how differently Nabokov approaches his mystery, as compared to other writers. And there is pleasure in that, but I'm not 100% susceptible to this sort of game. It's just not totally my thing. For me, Nabokov is a good writer, but I wouldn't put him at the top of my list.
Pale Fire is a long poem written by the neighbor of the narrator, but most of the book is comprised of the notes to that poem, written by said narrator, Charles Kinbote, who is deeply unreliable. The notes are mostly tangent, or the poem is, as Kinbote rambles off stories about his homeland, Zembla, where "girls are as a rule mere mechanisms of haphazard lust," and which doesn't exist. (view spoiler)
It's a fun puzzle and a fun murder mystery. And if you have a guess about why Stan Lee named Professor X after this guy, I'd like to hear it.
Pale Fire and Lolita both also feature unreliable narrators and slightly too much cleverness. And with Pale Fire, in particular...if you strip away the trickiness, what's left? (The answer: Prisoner of Zenda is left.) But the trickiness is the point, you say. Doesn't this smell just a little bit like self-indulgence, though? Nabokov writes for writers; his books are meant to be compared to other books. By itself, Pale Fire is "mostly an exercise in agility � or perhaps in bewilderment" (Time, 1962). Its pleasure comes from seeing how differently Nabokov approaches his mystery, as compared to other writers. And there is pleasure in that, but I'm not 100% susceptible to this sort of game. It's just not totally my thing. For me, Nabokov is a good writer, but I wouldn't put him at the top of my list.
Pale Fire is a long poem written by the neighbor of the narrator, but most of the book is comprised of the notes to that poem, written by said narrator, Charles Kinbote, who is deeply unreliable. The notes are mostly tangent, or the poem is, as Kinbote rambles off stories about his homeland, Zembla, where "girls are as a rule mere mechanisms of haphazard lust," and which doesn't exist. (view spoiler)
It's a fun puzzle and a fun murder mystery. And if you have a guess about why Stan Lee named Professor X after this guy, I'd like to hear it.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Pale Fire.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 12, 2014
–
Started Reading
January 12, 2014
– Shelved
January 15, 2014
–
Finished Reading
January 16, 2014
– Shelved as:
unreliable-narrators
January 16, 2014
– Shelved as:
2014
January 2, 2015
– Shelved as:
rth-lifetime
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)
date
newest »
newest »
And with Pale Fire, in particular...if you strip away the trickiness, what's left? But the trickiness is the point, you say. Doesn't this smell just a little bit like self-indulgence, though?This is the point where my fanboy contract obliges me to put in a word for Ada or Ardor -- it's about as tricky as you can get, but it doesn't feel like empty calories the way Pale Fire does. It's the Nabokov novel Gotham deserves!
(further response to friend request);We disagree here. “Pale Fire� is maybe my favorite book ever. I see Kinbote not primarily as unreliable but rather as the ultimate narcissist. I’ve read it 3 or 4 times because I love the way it’s written ... I am the “you� who says “the trickiness is the point.�
well HUMPHif I wanted tricks, I'd play WORDLE
but anyone who disagrees in an interesting and compelling way about a book as weird as this one is definitely someone I want to talk about books more with, so hi! Thanks for reaching out!
But yeah. I liked it, the writing was great, and it is a story worth reading, no doubt, but it wasn't a five-star book to me as it was (or as it seems to be) for everyone else.
Again, I'm still talking about Lolita here. Sorry for hijacking.