Thank you, very much. This is one step for me. I just needed an audio version of this. (I bought the book already.) Someone says, on another video, that "without the explanation it makes no sense". I'm biting my tongue from typing, "I'm not listening to understand. I'm listening to GET HIGH!" (Learning is a process. I'm going through step ONE!) Again, gracias.
Awesome. This video and reading is way better than listening to a nine hour video that also is a reading of "Pale Fire". I need to read the poem again. :D Thank you :)
Man, the poem is pretty self-explanatory... You didn't get it... Please google Nabokov and Pale Fire... The footnotes are fictional, the whole book is... since it tells a life (or several lives), most literary scholars regard it as a novel although the form is a poem edition... but it is totally fiction... the joke is actually that the poem is easy to understand: it is about a provincial neurotic poet and literary scholar (who probably is an alcoholic but that already is Kinbote's, the commentator's, view) who had a plain wife and a schizophrenic or schizotypal, ugly daughter who commits suicide, who is obsessed with his own death and the afterlife, and with form and style, and his everyday, lonely, provincial university and private life, seems rather homely, modest, depressed, uninteresting, and writes in silly heroic couplets that are rather uncommon in modern poetry (yet I love them). The whole irony comes from the commentator who says almost nothing about the poem itself but intrudes himself on his readers: first, he pretty frankly admits he stole the poem for editing it, second, he thinks the bullet shooting the poet when he finished his poem was meant to kill him (the commentator), he is a cosmopolitan, (all too) openly gay, sophisticated, colourful, energetic man who thinks he is the exiled king of Zembla, who survived various attempts at regicide against him... AND: he thinks the poem actually describes his own life as an exiled king! The novel is pretty hilarious... You should read it.
did you get my jasm/aɪ/n and my Pr/aʊ/st for Proust? ;) They would have been still better to mention... Why didn't you take those? Not patient enough to listen to the whole poem, sweetheart?
Jackies1979 No I’ve listened to it multiple times because it’s just fantastic, but I’m trying to memorize it and have only gotten to the beginning of Canto 2. I just happened to notice the one in the second stanza because it precedes two of my favorite lines in the poem (17-18). Thanks for the awesome recording!
I just kind of assumed that, given that you have an accent, perhaps you had a different dialectical pronunciation. Also an interesting decision to end with the repeated first line. I’ve argued with my friend about whether or not the poem is cyclical a la Finnegan’s Wake
46:13 Blade Runner 2049
I read the book because of that movie haha.
@@splatttt Me too! We are interlinked!!!
same
Thank you, very much. This is one step for me. I just needed an audio version of this. (I bought the book already.) Someone says, on another video, that "without the explanation it makes no sense". I'm biting my tongue from typing, "I'm not listening to understand. I'm listening to GET HIGH!" (Learning is a process. I'm going through step ONE!) Again, gracias.
The speaker keeps interrupting the text to insert his own commentary.. much like the structure of the original text itself.
Thank you sir, this is the best reading of Pale Fire yet.
I like the ones with random images better
Thank you so much for this. I was in tears several times.
This is an excellent reading- thank you. I enjoyed this so much
Thank you for this one! Very good reading and jokes. Sending you all good vibes from Belarus!
Awesome. This video and reading is way better than listening to a nine hour video that also is a reading of "Pale Fire". I need to read the poem again. :D Thank you :)
"There were dull throbs in my Triassic green." Thank you, Jackies1979, for daring to expose yourself and this wonderful work!
Gnostic turpitude
Thank You!
Loved the accent
But what does it all mean?
See the footnotes to find out. Possibly.
Man, the poem is pretty self-explanatory... You didn't get it... Please google Nabokov and Pale Fire... The footnotes are fictional, the whole book is... since it tells a life (or several lives), most literary scholars regard it as a novel although the form is a poem edition... but it is totally fiction... the joke is actually that the poem is easy to understand: it is about a provincial neurotic poet and literary scholar (who probably is an alcoholic but that already is Kinbote's, the commentator's, view) who had a plain wife and a schizophrenic or schizotypal, ugly daughter who commits suicide, who is obsessed with his own death and the afterlife, and with form and style, and his everyday, lonely, provincial university and private life, seems rather homely, modest, depressed, uninteresting, and writes in silly heroic couplets that are rather uncommon in modern poetry (yet I love them). The whole irony comes from the commentator who says almost nothing about the poem itself but intrudes himself on his readers: first, he pretty frankly admits he stole the poem for editing it, second, he thinks the bullet shooting the poet when he finished his poem was meant to kill him (the commentator), he is a cosmopolitan, (all too) openly gay, sophisticated, colourful, energetic man who thinks he is the exiled king of Zembla, who survived various attempts at regicide against him... AND: he thinks the poem actually describes his own life as an exiled king! The novel is pretty hilarious... You should read it.
_"You should read it."_
I have. Hence my comment.
So your comment was a bit dishonest...
Jackies1979 It’s ironic, I suppose
Thank you :)
38:25
15;00
17;40
Great recording but a couple of missed words (2:32 “dull dark white”, etc.). Still great though.
did you get my jasm/aɪ/n and my Pr/aʊ/st for Proust? ;) They would have been still better to mention... Why didn't you take those? Not patient enough to listen to the whole poem, sweetheart?
Jackies1979 No I’ve listened to it multiple times because it’s just fantastic, but I’m trying to memorize it and have only gotten to the beginning of Canto 2. I just happened to notice the one in the second stanza because it precedes two of my favorite lines in the poem (17-18). Thanks for the awesome recording!
I just kind of assumed that, given that you have an accent, perhaps you had a different dialectical pronunciation. Also an interesting decision to end with the repeated first line. I’ve argued with my friend about whether or not the poem is cyclical a la Finnegan’s Wake
35:30
27:48