more real people

[Brian D. McCary]

> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 9:39:41 -0500 (EST)
> From: TERRY CAESAR <CAESAR at vaxa.clarion.edu>

> Gaddis/Willie can't be real
> as Williams can because his reality has to be--let's say--verbal. Williams, in
> contrast, needs only to be alluded to; we've seen him and heard him already in
> the public realm. 

I think Terry hit the nail on the head: these are two distict classes of 
allusions.  Seems like there are at least five such classes:

Extra-narrative self referance - Joan Didion, Tom Robbins, Salman Rushdi
	Barth, ect. Frequently "author as god" questions
	and ironic comment.

Intra-narrative self referance (minor) - Gaddis as Willie, Vonnegut, ect.

Intra-narrative self referance (bio) - Kerouak (sp?) Bukowski, Vonnegut, ect.

Celebrity Referance, supporting - Hemmingway in Gaddis' _Recognitions_, 
the Mailer referancy Terry brought up originally, the Black Sox in
that Kenissilla book, ect.  

Celebrity Referance, starring - Historical fictions (for instance, Shakespear)
and alternative reality fictions, like the story Paul DiF. sent out (Thanks).

I think that the type Terry brought up originally is not really any
differant than cases where a writer refers to, for instance, a real 
movie.  Norman Mailer is being used as a symbol or a quick referance
which carries with it a broad spectrum of ideas.  For instance, when 
Richard Farina has Gnossis digging Trane, he establishes in the minds
of the reader familiar with jazz a significant idea of what the character
is like with just a few words.  The same could be true in using a ready
made murder victim like Mailer; the author doesn't have to build the 
character himself, although they do have to adhere to some portion of the
public understanding of the character.  I find it a little irritating,
since it reduces real people to manipulated objects, but, hey, it's the
end of the twentieth century, and people are objects....

Brian McCary