clarification

[Andrew Dinn]

TERRY CAESAR writes:

> Oh, dear. To speak, it seems, is to be misunderstood, even
> here, and even when one asks what one takes to be an innocent
> question. Mr. Dinn is pleased to remind me that no question (and
> certainly no typo!) is innocent. Then he pontificates yet again, on
> Gaddis in The Recognitions and Amis in a couple of other
> novels. Thanks for the references. No thanks for the opinions. The
> status of what real movie stars (among other celebrities) are doing
> in a number of contemporary texts is what remains to be
> assessed. Nothing much is served by dismissing them out of
> existence. Are we to understand that only distinguished authors
> merit the inclusion of their own individual reality in their
> fictions, much less that even the most distinguished ones are
> wondrously free of "onanistic fantasies?" Please.

Are we to understand at all? I mentioned Gaddis not to dismiss your
distinction (which I agree is very interesting) nor even to flaunt my
(admittedly not at all superior) knowledge of Gaddis rather because
Willie's appearance seemed to me to be a case in point. i) the author
is `known' to the reader in just the same way as, say, a film star -
certainly in terms of such mention affording *recognition* ii) the
mention of self is not an obvious case of "you wish" distortion (and
no this was not just a cheap shot. I do not see any virtue in Amis
self-inclusion. It strikes me as so false, so much middle-class boy
Martin attempting to appear as of the lads, that it ruins the books)
but rather a careful, controlled inclusion. It's similar to but not
quite along Hitchcock lines, i.e. as an actor in his own story. The
difference is that Willie is portrayed just as someone who knows a
little about Gaddis would expect him (Gaddis, that is) to appear,
writing a book related to religion, making clever puns etc. If Willie
is an actor then he is playing himself just as say Peter Falk plays
himself in Wim Wender's film Wings of Desire, in fact just like a Jack
Nicholson cameo *as* Nicholson in someone's book. The wrinkle is that
Willie is only recognisable as Willie now that Gaddis is a literary
celebrity.

> Just so, I didn't mean to suggest that the only real people in
> novels are those whose reality is widely known. It's merely a fact
> that the neighbors of Amis, or Gaddis, or Pynchon simply can't be
> known by readers AS THEMSELVES.  It's not a fact, on the other hand,
> that people such as Nicolson, or Pacino, or Mailer can be known by
> readers as themselves. But they can be recognized in this way, and
> recognized by large numbers of people who might be able to identi-
> fy them more readily--if not enthusiastically--than their next-door
> neighbors.  Indeed, I take the inclusion of real people to register
> something like this state of affairs.

Like I said the novelist is also autmatically in there in the
recognition stakes. Or do you think Amis used his own name for his
characters because he could not think up a more interesting one?

> I'd like to understand it better. This is why I asked for some other
> examples. Even if just asking turns out to be more volatile, or
> perhaps Dinn-witted, than I'd thought, I'd still like to be
> permitted to continue.

Where exactly in my reply did I say that the distinction you made was
stupid? Where did I deny you the right to continue posting on the
subject? Sorry if I'm just being Dinn-witted but I thought I was
trying to answer the question, not laying down orders.


The Pontiff