So this is a joke, right?

>>8857260
I dont think so. Please tell me why you think its a joke?

/lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own
>try to make thoughtful, well-written posts

you had one job OP

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-18 at 14.26.47.png (120KB, 310x398px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 310x398px

So this is a joke, right?

>>8857260
I have a question that I have been too ashamed to ask in its own thread: Is the poem a good poem or not? Is it legitimately good poetry?

I loved the novel, I found it very funny and I've been a sucker for all the old pervert's sensuous mind fucks. And I did enjoy the poem and I thought it was a good poem, not a joke or a parody. Did I get tricked? Was I supposed to snort haughtily at its ridiculousness? I haven't read much poetry and I'm not very well read in general.

Would old Volodya laugh at the though of his readers actually enjoying his 999-line elaborate prank?

File: jazz.jpg (42KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x666px

>>8857958
I thought it was pretty good too. The central joke of the book is how Botkin misinterprets Shade's obviously personal poem as an allegory for his insane ramblings about Zembla. I think the joke works better if the poem is well-written. The fact that there's an active debate over whether the poem was meant to be bad probably tells you something about Nabokov though. Or about poetry, idk.

>>8857272
I understood the poem myself and thought 200 pages of commentary were unnecessary
so I skipped the commentary part

>>8858019
you completely misunderstood the novel, congratulations

>>8858019
pls be real

>>8858022
t. Non-poet

>>8857998
>there's an active debate over whether the poem was meant to be bad
Is there? I thought it was just me. I've never seen anything, at least not on this board.

>>8858033
t. ruined bait

>>8858034
So I did some googling, and it lloks like I misremembered. I could have sworn I read some discussions on whether the poem was purposefully bad back when I first read the book, but this was the closest I could find: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pale-fire-the-poem-does-it-stand-alone-as-a-masterpiece