Real Women

[Mark Libin]

Diana York Blaine writes:
> 
> ... as we acknowledge self-consciousness, let's also acknowledge
> un-consciousness.  He's no more able to divorce himself from his culture
> than the rest of us are--that's why structuralism had to give way to
> post-structuralism. The structuralist's assertion that he could stand
> outside of any system to observe it objectively has been rightly debunked.
> So Pynchon's representation of women will be sexist.  We live in a sexist
> culture. This will be reflected in the material in both self- and
> un-conscious ways. 

	I do agree with this position, Diana. IMHO, it's the structure of 
language itself that is the trap, and it is the nature of that structure 
to render us un-conscious. We are always delimited by the language we are 
born into, and for this reason it seems reasonable that these kind of 
discussions take place in a computer-mediated literary discussion group. 
Could we not say that Pynchon's very mode of writing challenges the 
ever-present yet always inaccessible "They," subverting the seemingly 
omnipotent structure of language from the inside? And, of course, always 
failing precisely because he is writing?
	The question that initially intrigued me, however, remains open. 
How does Faulkner manage to create a female character that you consider 
very "real," while other writers fail? Considering that Faulkner's 
characters are constructed of the same material as Pynchon's-- that is, 
black ink imprinted on paper. I don't have an answer for this-- I'm 
interested in your response. 
	Looking at this screen, I realize that I am-- to you who read 
this-- only composed of characters on your screens. Not even ink, in this 
case, unless you print this out. My only manifestation, at this forum is 
as a signature, and so you all remain to me. Does our representation 
within this medium give us an opportunity to question our own 
credibility as characters?


Mark