Composition 101

[LARSSON at VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU]

Karen Kaminski asks:
"I'm curious...given your sense of the obscurity of "pig" as in, say, Pig
Bodine in V, do you (or does anyone else privy to this reply) think that
Pynchon's sense of characterization is, if anything, HIGHLY SYMBOLIC?
I'm a student in a course on Great Authors called "Shakespeare and
Pynchon" here at Bryant College.  And since I do get some credit for this
question's being able to solicit respones, hoping that this question is
worthwhile, may I rephrase it to the DG:
 
I've noticed in V. COL49, and Vineland that most, if not all, of the
characters seem, somehow, `partial' yet highly suggestive (or is it too
suggestive) in how they come across.  I even wonder whether it can be
said that TP writes one central character into each of his novels, which
is a `composite' of all the characters in the book.  Does any of this
make sense to anyone out there.
 
I would be grateful to here from any of you on the subject."


I could take "
composite character" in two ways: 1) there is *a* character in each book
who is a composite of all the characters; or 2) all the characters are
a composite of some (archetypal?) ur-character.  Which do you mean?

If the latter, I'd agree that TRP, like other "encyclopedic" writers, tries
to create a microcosm within his books that encompasses a large part (if not
all) of the known universe.

On the other hand, I think that Pig Bodine and other characters like him
represent certain personalities, ideas, trends, or what you will but are
not really composites of the others themselves.

But the pig, as name for a character and as symbol in general, is obviously
favored in TRP's work.  More on *that* to come in the GRGR, I'm sure!

Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)