I love this book. Before anything else it's a pleasure to read: it's funny, touching, and the constant referring to the poem at its core forces literary engagement - even if it's only to notice where Kinbote is bending the truth. It also scratches a metafictional itch that has now become a huge trend in modern media...

Spoilers below

...but I find it suffers in criticism for a different trend: that everything has a 'gotcha'. While I accept that there is no sensible reading where the narrator is entirely reliable, I reject that there is an evocative reading using the Shadean theory referenced in footnote 2.

Sometimes this is given as 'Shade wrote the whole book'. I have no time for that. You don't need a character who writes Pale Fire on index cards: that's just Nabokov. And what would it mean if this Shade writes a heartfelt canto about his own loss, then the interpretation that cruelly misses the topic?

Sometimes it's given that Kinbote is a dissociative identity of Shade. I see this as an interpretation that minimised the impact of the text to maximise the self-satisfaction of the reader. Read through the book with it in mind and you find yourself asking what's the point of it all. In line 62's explanation, Kinbote reads 'hal.....s' as 'hallucinations'. If Kinbote is a real character within the story, that's a joke between Nabokov and the reader. With this theory it's nothing. Kinbote's writings make up the bulk of what you read. It's much more interesting to do so if you choose believe there's a point to them.

Spoilers done

I had a similar experience reading interpretations of Lolita, with the added problem of takes that over-correct and signal against the subject and wider public perception.