Interview with Chrissie

[Bill Burns]

I accidentally sent this to Tom rather than the list. Here's attempt number two.

>
>Tom writes:
>
>>I'm happy
>>he's a doting father (being one myself I can attest it changes you)
>>and I hope M&D is a crowning achievement for him & his readers. The
>>rest is just a footnote, but I admit to reading every one of them.
>>
>
>When I wrote my master's thesis on *Vineland*, I speculated that Pynchon may 
>have become a father. I have to admit that I was not in touch with 
>much of the extra-literary/biographical information available (pardon, 
>to those deconstructionists out there, for the obvious problems with 
>this statement). My judgement was based on the atypical sentimentality of
the novel (i.e., the dedication to his parents, the general familial tone). 
>
>(steps on podium and clears throat--good thing this podium's in the local
pub, or he'd really be stepping on it)
>
><sermon>
>
>Mind you, I find nothing wrong with the tone or style of *Vineland*. We 
>have to remember that a number of paradigm shifts have likely occurred 
>for our man since he wrote GR. Reading through the archives, I've seen a
number of posts suggesting that *Vineland* is lacking in terms of its
design. I find it to be much more accessible, but I don't necessarily
consider it unsophisticated in its design (keeping in mind that
sophisticated designs often are far simpler than their prototypes).
>
>Consider this--Chrissie mentions that TRP tries to block his novels like
comic books (a tactic that we in the technical communication business are
considering more seriously all the time). If his approach to narrative has
this as its guiding schema, which novel most clearly expresses this design?
In my opinion, it's *Vineland*. *GR* provides some excellent examples of
blocked scenes, tied together by extensive and elaborate narrative
(including my all-time favorite scene concerning the wine jellies).
However, the blocking is not altogether transparent. (Whether it should be
or not is another question.)
>
>In *Vineland*, we get frames within frames (one person's experience
described by another, presented on film, or rendered in past tense). Very
rarely is one frame presented that does not include an embedded frame of
some sort. Earlier in my monitoring of this group, I meant to bring up the
theories of mental space developed by Gilles Fauconier (search metaphor and
metonymy on the web for other resources). I think it has particular
relevance to Pynchon's style in *Vineland*. Given Chrissie's input, perhaps
what we're seeing is the end result of TRP's efforts to render a visual
narrative—a graphic novel in narrative form. 
>
>We hold formulations of scientific theory up to a standard of eloquence:
simplicity. If this is what we expect from empiricists, then why do we
expect our man's writings to become more complex in his development as a
novelist? If we *should* expect more simplicity from TRP, then how does
*Vineland* violate that expectation (in a manner that would be a failure
rather than an iconoclastic move on his part)?
>
></sermon>
>
>[Ya see what happens when beer and listserv get together? Not a pretty sight.]
>
>Night. I'm gonna pay for this tomorrow.
>
>
[and I did.]

Bill Burns
WDBurns at micron.net
============================================================
  Brought to you by W.A.S.T.E. and your local postmaster.
============================================================