Name: Pale Fire
Rating: 4.241573033707865 (89 reviews)
ISBN: 9780141912868

Vladimir Nabokov

A novel constructed around the last great poem of a fictional American poet, John Shade, and an account of his death. The poem appears in full and the narrative develops through the lengthy, and increasingly eccentric, notes by his posthumous editor.

Pale Fire

old man / age gap one sided toxic yaoi told in the point of view of an unreliable narrator with a huge ego, 10/10 no notes

Pale fire

Greg Talbot

A literary masterpiece, a 999 line poem by John Shade is given the academic and historical context by Dr. Charles Kinbote. These 4 Cantos are only 25 pages or so...but the footnotes and commentary explain the deepeer and wilder meanings hidden in the text. Thrilling, hilarious, inscrutable..Nabokov takes the reader to the thrilling and demented vision of Dr. Charles Kinbote. Though Shade’s work appears on the surface to be about the wonder and beauty of the natural world, Kinbote brings an absurd academic perspective in his footnote “he (Shade) has preserved; for in all his draft as manyas thirteen verses, superb singing verses bear the specific imprint of my theme, a minute but genuine star ghost of my discourse on Zembla and her unfortunate king (p.63). Kinbote takes the reader into inane and insane footnotes, that do not give added detail, but obscurity to the text of the man he admires. From my own reading i’ve read various interpretations of the book/project. Some have identified the book as being a theme about Freudian analysis, the Russian tyranny of the 20th century, homosexual desire, critiques on academia, and simply aesthetic bliss. So many of the footnotes work as hiliarious snippets of thought. “The grand potato: an execrable pun, deliberately placed in the epigraphic position to stress lack of respect for Death.” And commentary on unitary themes of Shakespeare...kingdoms….purpose of authorship..are reduced to jokes.. Like “Lolita”, Nabokov’s “Pale Fire”’s narrative can never really be removed from the psyche of the character. The question of authorship...the question of intent..and the question of authenticity all stands here. I’m sure other readers have had a better understanding of understanding John Shade’s poem connection to Kinbot’s footnotes. I know there are some great writings out there to get at the depth of Nabokov’s artificial world- <a target="_blank" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7806.Nabokov_s_Pale_Fire?from_search=true" rel="nofollow noopener">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...</a>) “Pale Fire” is discussed as a book that fits more into the literary fiction of our world today than when it was written in 1962. It’s non-linearity, it’s post-modern toying with authenticity and reality, the homosexual undercurrents, and just the pure weirdness of it all. It’s a wild ride...and thrilling in way to undercut anyone’s sense of reality. --------- Original Review - 6/12/12 What Nabokov does here is very similar to what people do today through social networking or Redditing. It takes an established work, and gives it the narration/filter of someone with a totally different/bizzare perspective. Here's what I love about the book: 1) It is hilarious in so many ways, and mocks the T.S. Eliot cantos and writing style. 2) You have no idea where book is going. 3) The vocab. is absolutely superb. 4) The ending is one of the most jaw-dropping endings i've ever read. Golden.

In Pale Fire Nabokov offers a cornucopia of deceptive pleasures: a 999-line poem by the reclusive genius John Shade; an adoring foreword and commentary by Shade's self-styled Boswell, Dr. Charles Kinbote; a darkly comic novel of suspense, literary idolatry and one-upmanship, and political intrigue.

The most whacky insane mind boggling book I’ve ever had the pleaser and displeasure of reading 

Niki Sotiropoulou-Nassika

The American poet John Shade is dead; murdered. His last poem, 'Pale Fire', is put into a book, together with a preface, a lengthy commentary and notes by Shade's editor, Charles Kinbote. Known on campus as the 'Great Beaver', Kinbote is haughty, inquisitive, intolerant, but is he also mad, bad - and even dangerous? As his wildly eccentric annotations slide into the personal and the fantastical, Kinbote reveals perhaps more than he should. Nabokov's darkly witty, richly inventive masterwork is a suspenseful whodunit, a story of one-upmanship and dubious penmanship, and a glorious literary conundrum.Part of a major new beautiful hardback series of the works of Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita and Pale Fire, in Penguin Classics.

i did NOT expect it to be this funny ironic and absurd LOL... 

<mild spoilers henceforth> i kept asking myself how would i react to

& its commentary as "real" pieces of work vs. knowing of it as a story inside a story. my real-time comments include: "ah narsis bgt nih org" (of Kinbote); "WHO THE HELLLL DO YOU THINK YOU AREE" (p. 114), etc. if it was a real work no doubt i would mark it with 2 star (or, DNF) & say that i liked the poem but complain of a Commentary that makes no sense. as its actual form here, i find it so funny that Charles thinks so lowly of psychoanalysis when we can read between the lines what he truly is like & what his actual motivations are in "befriending" his "beloved poet". <end spoiler>

 in the sense that the authors (Nabokov & Morrison) writes 

 such that, taken out of context, the lines shine on their own, but in context they're just ramblings of someone engulfed in self-delusion [of grandeur]. the distance-gap of knowing between us as a reader vs. the character saying it just permeates the whole book. 

it's such a good exercise in actually engaging with text, inherently through its form interrogating the notion of passively accepting text as 

 can you, as a reader, read between these lines? do you fully accept what Kinbote is saying? can you see the cracks forming even as he tries to polish it over? can you trust this text, his voice, the circumstances of this book?

madina

i did NOT expect it to be this funny ironic and absurd LOL... 

<mild spoilers henceforth> i kept asking myself how would i react to Pale Fire & its commentary as "real" pieces of work vs. knowing of it as a story inside a story. my real-time comments include: "ah narsis bgt nih org" (of Kinbote); "WHO THE HELLLL DO YOU THINK YOU AREE" (p. 114), etc. if it was a real work no doubt i would mark it with 2 star (or, DNF) & say that i liked the poem but complain of a Commentary that makes no sense. as its actual form here, i find it so funny that Charles thinks so lowly of psychoanalysis when we can read between the lines what he truly is like & what his actual motivations are in "befriending" his "beloved poet". <end spoiler>

this book reminds me of Jazz in the sense that the authors (Nabokov & Morrison) writes beautifully such that, taken out of context, the lines shine on their own, but in context they're just ramblings of someone engulfed in self-delusion [of grandeur]. the distance-gap of knowing between us as a reader vs. the character saying it just permeates the whole book. 

it's such a good exercise in actually engaging with text, inherently through its form interrogating the notion of passively accepting text as Truth: can you, as a reader, read between these lines? do you fully accept what Kinbote is saying? can you see the cracks forming even as he tries to polish it over? can you trust this text, his voice, the circumstances of this book?

I think perhaps pale fire walked so 'biography of x' could run

B.A. Bacigal

Evan

I don't know what I was expecting, but I don't think it was a comedy.
 
I enjoyed "Pale Fire" quite a bit. In terms of its structure, I think it's a very impressive feat to see something like this play with its medium in its time. To me, anything existing this "meta" before the Internet is immediately worthy of praise. It's very unique and having read "House of Leaves" earlier in my life, there's simply no doubt that drew inspiration from this. I find it amusing that critics at the time called it "a total wreck" and "unreadable". The Internet has made this book quite tame.
 
In terms of its story, I will say I feel a tad disappointed. Not horribly so, as I give it 4 stars, but I just feel like the story doesn't live up to the incredible structuring. It's pretty easy to predict what is going on with Kinbote; I suppose part of the narrative is just deciding how much of this obviously unreliable narrator is to be trusted.
For me, Kinbote was as honest as the smug prick could be. I didn't care much for Shade's poetry -- though I think this is pretty intentional as I'd guess it wasn't for me -- I think "Pale Fire" was at its best when Kinbote was really letting loose about someone or something and letting his emotions get the better of him. He's a very funny character, and while he's supposedly trying to play an academic, he lets his feelings get the better of him pretty often. These outbursts, however brief, were my favorite part of the story.
 
I see why this book was chosen as an integral part of "Blade Runner 2049"'s plot. I see a lot of 'You're not the main character' energy, here.
 
I enjoyed "Pale Fire" and would recommend it to a patient reader who enjoys a certain type of sardonic humor.

Dang Nguyen

"It is the writer's grief. It is the wild".
A timeless masterpiece. One of the most atypical novel in which distinctive elements of wording combine. There's a sense of thematic structure with deep, prosperous nuances lying beneath the ground of every poem.

D D D 

honestly didn’t really like this one. maybe not in the headspace for this. I did love the poem though

Andrew John Kinney

Since there are hundreds of reviews of Pale Fire, and over 80 books that have been written about Nabokov's masterpiece, I'll avoid too much analysis and focus on the way I approached this book. If you've read Lolita, you know Nabokov likes unreliable narrators, and Kinbote is the classic Nabokovian example. I tried reading the book by delving into Kinbote's "notes" and referring back to the lines of the poem they referenced, but I quickly realized that Nabokov was having a bit of fun with readers who take such a literal approach, so then I read the book straight through, and like Lolita, it is, most of it, a galloping romp. The constructed world of Zembla is so detailed and interesting; now I look forward to reading Speak, Memory to hear the true account of Nab's upbringing. 

There is so much going on below the surface here that I will absolutely need to read parts of the book again. Thanks to Lori for pointing out the importance of reading the Preface, and for encouraging me to finish when I got frustrated with flipping back and forth between "notes" and lines of the poem. There is so much to say about Pale Fire, that I'll confine myself to this: don't worry about all the theories about who the real narrator is, or who Botkin is, or the role of Hazel's ghost, etc. The book stands alone as a good read; once you've read the surface story, you can go back to dig into the undercurrents. This is a book to return to over and over.

Christopher McCaffery

But can one ever really finish reading this?

Nicholas Hanemann

Truly disappointing. As a puzzle, it isn't stimulating; as a character study, it's not evocative. The poem is quite good though.

a novel

Simon Elliott Stegall

Amazing book. I can't believe it's not more well known. 

Despite the fact that English was Nabokov's third language, his writing is better than 99% of books I've ever read. Gorgeous and hilarious prose, a huge vocabulary, and eloquent and surprising metaphors.

Also the story is mysterious, intense, and wonderfully satirical of the academic English Department practice of "commenting" on other writers' works. I love this book and will probably reread in years to come.

Nathan Griffin

Interesting way to tell a story and Nabokov's prose is really, really, good. I liked it overall, but didn't love it. I wish Goodreads allowed half stars, but since Nabokov was a fussy man and threw lots of shade at Dostoevsky, it gets 3 stars.

Pale Fire

Reviews

Highlights