Pale Fire is one of the greatest books I’ve ever read. It is so great it is terrifying to write about. This is not something I would normally confess, but in this case it seems better to just come out and say it, lest the reader feel the awful stammering of suppressed terror quavering through my words without knowing what they are feeling. It is terrifying! But I want to do it anyway, because although mighty brains from all over the planet have weighed in on the subject with breath-taking and exhaustive scholarly ardour, I feel that something essential about the book remains not exactly unseen but distinctly understated.
Since its publication in 1962, people who admire Pale Fire — fawn upon it, adore it — like to speak of it as a feat of baroque intellectual magic, which it is. In her New Republic review, Mary McCarthy described it as “Faberge gem, a clockwork toy, a chess problem, an infernal machine, a trap to catch reviewers, a cat-and-mouse game, and do-it-yourself novel”, among other things. Brian Boyd, in his book Nabokov’s Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery, writes densely and ecstatically about the novel as a near-endless array of ever-deepening “problems and possibilities”, an intellectual delight to explore; Ron Rosenbaum (in The Observer, circa 1999) declared the book “The Novel of the Century” based on the idea that it is a “theology of Shakespeare”, haunted by Shakespeare, housing Shakespeare, that it is, basically, a Shakespeare phantasmagoria. (Rosenbaum also acknowledges that the book is “an almost obscenely sensual pleasure”, but that is an aside.)
The book has also been criticised for this very virtuosity, even dismissed by those who interpret the book’s brilliance as cold, wilfully weird or even hostile towards the reader. These opposing critical opinions are sincerely echoed by readers of all kinds, sometimes simultaneously. A friend of mine described his amazed delight in the book as something he might feel “if a winged griffin had landed on [his] lawn”, awed, but not moved emotionally — and secretly suspecting that the author might consider him a sucker if he were moved. An academic acquaintance who generally loves Nabokov considers it his least wonderful book, flawed by excessive cleverness, compulsive literary cross-referencing and the homophobic portrayal of its ridiculous and bitchy queer narrator, Charles Kinbote.
It is true that Kinbote’s queerness is unflattering. (It is also not quite convincing; there is more narrative energy lavished on his dramatic woman-spurning than on his conquests of — or rejection by — men and boys.) Indeed, the generic condemnation “problematic” more than applies to the character Kinbote, a comically unpleasant personality who has been morally condemned or pitied by readers since his creation.
He appears on page one of the novel to explain that he is the editor of a poem titled Pale Fire, authored by his neighbour, friend and academic colleague, Professor John Shade, who has been recently murdered in error by an incompetent foreign agent dispatched to kill Kinbote. Kinbote, you see, is not your average college professor; that role is a disguise to hide his true identity as the fugitive King of Zembla, where he reigned as Charles the Beloved until an annoying crew of Soviet-style revolutionaries turned his beautiful world upside-down. Thus forced to take a drab teaching position at Wordsmith College in Wye, Appalachia, subletting the furnished home of a local judge (full of family pictures so distasteful to His Majesty that they are quickly consigned to the closet), Kinbote’s only consolation is his proximity to Shade who he truly admires — so much that he stalks Shade’s house to spy on him.
Whether or not Kinbote is completely crazy is a question throughout the book — indeed his very identity is a question. From my point of view, he is just somewhat crazy and a lot desperate and has certainly taken advantage of Shade’s distraught widow in order to seize control of the poem so that he may explain to the world that it really is or at least ought to have been about him and his camouflaged royalty. After his fevered introduction, written from a cheap and desolate mountain hideaway, he presents the poem, 36 pages of wry, elegiac perhaps rather staid beauty. This is followed by 228 pages of Kinbote’s wildly self-centred commentary — even the suicide of John Shade’s daughter, poor homely Hazel, with whom Kinbote feels more empathic identification than anyone else, is seen through the fanatically minute lens of His Majesty’s Zemblan concerns. And then there is the almost mystically Kinbotian index, in which detailed notes are supplied for characters barely mentioned and it is revealed that the Zemblan assassin’s name spelled backwards is the name of a “mirror-maker of genius”.
For all his fantastic humour, Kinbote seems the unintentional butt of his own jokes, the ultimate “unreliable narrator”, meant to be pitied or contrasted unfavourably with the imminently normal Shade. And yet… he reminds me of a line from Nabokov’s short story Spring In Fialta in which the narrator describes a circus poster “which depicted a red hussar and an orange tiger of sorts; curious — in his effort to make the beast as ferocious as possible, the artist had gone so far that he had come back from the other side, for the tiger’s face looked positively human”. If you replace the word “ferocious” with “grotesque” the tiger could be Kinbote.
Almost on introducing himself to us, at the beginning of his forward to Shade’s poem, Kinbote interrupts his faux scholarly description of the work with the non-sequitur, “There is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings”, before picking up right where he left off. It is one of a few small but telling oddities that made Brian Boyd, rhetorically remark: “What sort of person is this commentator?” I might answer, using a word that Nabokov would’ve hated and which I sort of hate too: a very relatable one. Someone who possesses a contemporary sensibility that feels free mixing a subjectively personal aside into what is supposed to be a scrupulous public presentation; someone who hates being pestered by loud noise when he is trying to think; someone so given to incongruous blurtings that he can be trusted to tell you the truth about himself even when he is lying.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is a really first class essay, imo. Intelligent, insightful (both intellectually and emotionally) and nuanced.
Whether this essay (or any essay) inspires me to read Pale Fire is a separate issue. The description of the novel’s word games and interlocking layers, or webs, of meaning is too reminiscent of Joyce to appeal to me. The later passages quoted by the author describe a type, or depth, or complexity, of emotion I haven’t experienced. The way Kinbote dreams of Disa is simply beyond my experience. I’m forced to the conclusion, not for the first time, there is a class of writer who experiences life, particularly the complexity of human relationships, much more deeply and acutely than me and I doubt I can connect with their work.
Nabokov’s use of language, though, is wonderful:
“the lake all peach syrup regularly rippled with pale blue, and the captions of a newspaper spread flat on the foul bottom near the stone bank perfectly readable through the shallow diaphanous filth, and because, upon hearing him out, she sank down on the lawn in an impossible posture, examining a grass culm and frowning,”
I see that scene in my mind without any effort. I’ve read Nabokov was also a poet. If the author hasn’t tempted me to read Pale Fire, I’m now intrigued by Nabokov’s poetry.
In any event, kudos to the author for this dazzling essay.
The author suggests that we all experience what Nabokov has somehow managed to express in literary form. It may just be a matter of degree.
What that experience is, i’d venture, is the difference between how we imagine our relationship with certain others and the reality of that relationship.
An example might include the difference that’s now quite commonly experienced between texting exchanges and face to face conversations. In the former, we have chance to consider and somehow enhance our words – to present a heightened version of ourselves that the reality of spending time with someone doesn’t always match.
That’s why this essay, and the book itself (which i haven’t read and don’t intend to) may have particular resonance for our age.
Read it, read it. The passages on Hazel, her plainness, her disastrous date, her death…will alone move you to tears.
Nabokov is not at all like Joyce, and in fact, Pale Fire is eminently readable; far more so, in fact, than the vast majority of Modernist or Post-modernist novels. An intelligent teenager can read it and largely understand it, although there’s always more to be discovered.
Still, if you find its reputation a bit daunting, try approaching Nabokov through Lolita, which is great fun and a compelling page turner.
I still have my copy of Pale Fire (borrowed from the school library and never returned, so yes, stolen). I can remember finding it dizzyingly confusing and yet somehow deeply affecting. 44 years later a line stays with me: ”Her look spelt imploration as she sought in vain to reason with the monsters in her brain.” I’m grateful for this article for inspiring me to tackle Pale Fire again and hopefully enjoy it more deeply.
My nature is to reject others’ recommendations to read a ‘classic’. I have generally found that classic works are too complex, too clever, and divert attention from the story. They may be delightful but they don’t nourish (me).
So… I enjoy The Lord of the Rings as a story, but prefer The Hobbit, and ignore all the other Middle Earth books. I can’t get past the first chapter of Moby d**k, Shakespeare’s plays are too distant in time for me to appreciate fully. And so on. There are probably many classics that I would like but they huddle under the shadow cast by the ‘greats’.
Displays of literary skill leave me cold so the excellent essay above warns me that Pale Fire is not worth my attention.
It’s often really a matter of taste. I love Nabokov and Jane Austen, for example, but Thomas Hardy leaves me cold. For many others, the opposite will be true.
It makes me ridiculously amused that the UnHerdBot asterixed Melville’s title, AC Harper. And I am now wasting time and brain power trying to think of other classic titles that might get similarly bowdlerised…
Thanks for this. Ordering now.
Me too
I’m not sure if this article, which I find more complex than the book itself, would incline me to want to read it. It is a great book – and a very funny book, and can be enjoyed without too much analysing. My suggestion is (if you read it) to ignore the poem, at least at the beginning, and go back to it later on if you wish. Nowhere near as complex as Joyce, although he too wrote one of the world’s best short stories, The Dead.
“You can get nearer and nearer, so to speak, to reality; but you can never get near enough because reality is an infinite succession of steps, levels of perception, false bottoms and hence unquenchable, unattainable.”
Ding an sich
Thanks to the author for including excerpts for Nabokov’s book, which confirmed my suspicions (based on her descriptions of it) that it’s another tiresome pseudo intellectual exercise in pointless wankery. Fellow UnHerders, ready your arrows.
Nominal-only arrowlet duly fired, more in sorrow and sympathy than anger. Each to our own, Studio Largo – enjoy the latest James Patterson 🙂
Spare me your condescension. No James Patterson for me, my literary tastes run more to Ian McEwan, Milan Kundera, Salman Rushdie and others who succintly tell a worthwhile story instead of engaging in tiresome pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
Brilliant essay on the best novel written by the best novelist of all time, at the apex of the novel’s creative power. (Mostly downhill for the form since.) I may differ slightly; in fact I think that Hazel Shade is the hot core of the entire project. I think that, just as Nabokov wanted to write something profoundly original about Humanity’s duelling destructive/erotic impulses, and felt the need to amplify its power by easter-egging it within the wildly inventive and hilarious structure of Lolita, so too he wanted to capture something of the incredibly subtle father-daughter dynamic, similarly disguised by a vast edifice of stylistic and meta-structural invention. The passages relating to Hazel’s plainness become so intimate and close, buried almost off-handedly as they are inside all that flash-bang literary smart-ar*ery. It’s like your seat-neighbour leaning in and whispering the Secret of the Universe in your ear during the grand finale at a rock and roll circus. Some of the most universally tender and inclusive and redemptive things I’ve ever read, by a man, about being a woman. And also, I ‘d say, more relevant than ever, given the accelerating commodification/objectification of ‘girl/womanhood’ and the giddying funk that feminism seems to have got itself into nowadays on gender issues.
So cool to have such wonderful new writing on this great book. Thanks MG. Gunna get me a copy. Hope it’ll be published down here in a local (Oz) imprint.
I remember Pale Fire as being laugh-out-loud funny and it’s a pity literary scholars have got in on the act. Nabokov hated them by the way.
Wonderful essay.