GRGR(11) - Last section of group read of Pt 1
Andrew Dinn
andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk
Thu Feb 20 15:32:39 CST 1997
Foax,
Discussion of GRGR(10) is completed and we are due to discuss
GRGR(11), the last section in Part 1. I am not going to follow my
usual practice of posting questions on the section. Since we have now
reached the end of Part 1 (and since participation appears to be low
due to the fact that you all read ahead and finished several weeks
back) I want to try to shift the focus of the discussion.
So, I will make some general points about Part 1 and its place in the
novel's scheme of things. I am not going to ignore section 11 totally
but for the most part I will content myself with presenting a sequence
of comments and questions oriented along several independent
dimensions of the novel. The result should be somewhere between a set
of personal notes and an essay. Please don't take anything as other
than tentative and provisional and please amplify, dissect and/or
disagree wildly.
n.b. I am posting this a little bit earlier than usual (Thursday
night) because I will be away in Zurich tomorrow. I'll be back Tuesday
but don't let that stop you chipping in your 2 cents worth over the
weekend.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say: I flow.
To the rushing water speak: I am.
----- 8< -------- 8< -------- 8< -------- 8< -------- 8< -------- 8< ---
Children Who Are Learning To Die
--------------------------------
The purpose of this note is to initiate the formalization of some
general observations, insights and themes which appear in (but are not
necessarily limited to) Part 1 of `Gravity's Rainbow'. My first
thought when I considered how to approach the task was to identify
various dimensions of the novel within which such observations could
be classified and then to rack my brains for interesting examples in
each category. So, what I will present represents a semi-structured
mind dump. As such it makes no pretensions to (total) correctness or
completeness. Its purpose is more to stimulate than still discussion.
Please note that its form is as much grist to your collective mill as
its content. If you decide that my dimensional analysis is incomplete,
incoherent or merely inadequate then criticise it too (I'm assuming
you will find lots to criticise in the details of what I have to say).
I'll present some detailed comments below but first here is an initial
set of dimensions of the novel which can be used to organise the
discussion:
1) Architecture - the way the parts of the novel have been assembled
and how they combine to produce our own favourite Aggregaet.
2) Plotting - is there a plot in any conventional sense? if not then
how about in an unconventional sense and how does it relate to a
conventional plot?
3) Recurrent Tropes - there are oodles of repeated images, patterns,
metaphors in GR. how do they all link up and what purpose do they
serve?
4) Key References - the book keeps pointing out of itself into the
`real' world. which references should a conscentious reader follow
up and which sources should s/he consult?
5) Morals - as in the moral of the story is . . . or do you believe
that there is no moral to be found?
6) Biographical Details - when reading I keep on getting this spooky
feeling that it is Tom talking to me. the real Tom. This actually
happened etc. So which bits did really happen?
7) Mythographical (Cultural/Subcultural) Details - GR is full of
myth, not just in the classic(al) sense but also modern-day myths,
myths specific to a specific community or sub-culture (e.g.
dopers, Zooties, spiritualism etc). It would be nice to have a
full catalogue and reference to sources with the complete
background.
8) (Writing) Technique - Pynchon has introduced various new
techniques to the art of the novel and refined tricks employed by
other writers. what are they? whose work has he used or developed.
Architecture
------------
Part 1 is the first of four parts divided into 22 sections each
separated by a line of seven squares. The sections appear to ramble
all over the show in space and time. But actually, I will contend taht
Part 1 has a very simple architecture.
Each of the 22 sections is a self-contained episode. Sections do
relate to each other in that one section continues the story left off
in a preceding section. But consecutive sections often start in very
different locations. Time order is more complex but I believe it to be
essentially linear.
Each section starts in an outer frame all of which taken together form
a temporally ordered sequence set in the main time frame of the novel,
WWII 1945-6. The outer frames all occupy `real' place and time in that
they are historically accurate,for the most part realistic (no
fantasy, no impossible events before breakfast) and not anachronistic
(how do you say that without a double negative). However, within each
section the action diverts into nested frames some fo which are `ral'
but historical with reference to the enclosing frame and others of
which are `unreal', fantasies, dreams and such like.
Entry into nested narratives usually follows a coherent policy i.e.
Pynchon does not just jump into a new story in mid-flow. His main
technique for effecting the transition is to dramatise the interior
monologue by narrating it, as follows:
In any frame we have 3 levels of presentation for the action i)
narration by a conventional more or less invisible narrator (as in
sometimes more visible and sometimes less visible) ii) dialogue
between characters in the frame iii) interior monologue from the point
of view of one of the characters. Things are complicated by the fact
that i) and iii) are often deliberately elided using the Uncle Charles
principle (the invisible narrator adopts the `voice' of a character
thereby colouring the narration with their perspective but not
restricting the presentation solely to that perspective). In fact,
Pynchon slips so effortlessly between the two that the line between
them is pretty grey. (One might also choose to regard song as a fourth
mode of presentation but in most cases I think the songs are in
people's heads, represent part of the interior monologue).
The trick which allows Pynchon to build such a complex structure is
not his invention but he uses it to great effect. Straight interior
monologue a la Joyce/Woolf is either a no person or 1st person (same
thing) stream of words describing a corresponding flow of
`perceptions', the infamous stream of consciousness. Of course this
not only lands you with a phenomenological view of the mind and its
operation, it also seeks to squeeze a panoply of linguistic and
non-linguistic activities into a narrow linguistic framework (that of
the eye-witness report - as if interior monologue can only be done in
TV fly-on-the-wall documentary style). Instead Pynchon usually chooses
to dramatise his character's interiors.
So, when we enter Roger's head during the drive to meet Pointsman, as
e.g. he recalls meeting Jessica on her bike, we first get narration
coloured by his voice and then suddenly we shift into a temporally
antecedent frame reported by an external narrator. Cue dissolve. Very
filmic. And a whole historical scene may be presented in full with
antecedents, main events and closure merely to expand on a passing
thought. In the above example Roger may actually be remembering the
whole lot. But even then actual memories and the full-scale
technicolor narration Pynchon provides are not really comparable as
regards duration, detail etc (assuming that we can somehow suspend our
disbelief and ignore the fact that everything is diffracted through
the medium of language).
Architecturally what makes Pynchon's work different to other authors
is not that he dramatises the interior, nor even the various
techniques he employs to effect that dramatization. The uniqueness is
that he applies this interior dramatisation technique recursively.
Each nested scene can itself open up at a moments notice to enter some
antecedent or lower level drama. And when the nested drama finishes we
pop back out gain to a higher level (maybe skipping an intermediary or
two). The nested dramas may be real, in whch case they usually provide
historical background which both exposes issues in the drama just
stacked as well as contributing to the development of the plot,
characters etc. Alternatively they may be fantasies.
Plotting
--------
The main plot in section 1 occurs in the outer frame narrative which
introduces the leading characters. This is a fairly conventional
linear plot whose main theme (alongside the scene-setting) is to
develop the story of Slothrop's erections, the rocket and the psi/psy
crew. Within the nested dialogues independently plotted historical or
fantasy scenes are developed. As well as providing background for the
current scene and the whole story they also tie in to the main story
by emphasising common themes or images, so teh `independence' of plot
for these scenes is only at the level of the imediate action.
Recurrent Tropes
----------------
A whole load of these. Here are some key ones:
a) Frankenstein's Monster: also appears as Der Golem, the Rocket and
(Pointsman's monster) Slothrop (King Kong?). Also the seance scene
with Rathenau where he describes chemistry (and in fact all science)
as achieving nothing more than Frankenstein, a poor attempt to recycle
dead matter (oil) as a living dead creature (the synthetic).
b) Preterition: as real death, (inner/moral) death, slaughter of pigs
at market, crossing to the other side: as opposed to Election: the pig
that got away, the flight into space (escaping Gravity).
c) Control: of the rocket, of people (e.g. the psi crew of Slothrop),
of self and failure to do so (Roger, Slothrop, Katje, Pirate, Jess)
d) Habituation: as primary psychic mechanism (as opposed to reason),
dogs, Slothrop, Grigori, Katje (oven game)
e) Reversal/inversion/opposites: rocket, Slothrop's erections, black &
white (Enzian/Gottfried), organic/inorganic,
Key References
--------------
Multinational Industry esp IG Farben, General Electric, Shell
Rathenau
Spiritualism - Theosophers et al
V2 Program and Rocketry
Nazi History - Hitler, Speer
Film - King Kong, Wizard of Oz, Dumbo, Early German Film & Directors, Welles?
. . .
Morals
------
Well, this is tricky. This is a very moral book but exactly what *the*
moral is . . . that's another matter. I thought about this a bit and
decided it was best to look at this from a great distance to get the
minimum detail and the maximum overview. So, here is a 4 line summary
of the book which also provides the moral for the first part.
i) We could all *die* at any moment.
ii) *You* could die at any moment.
iii) I'm going to *die*!
iv) Kiss your ass goodbye!
Part 1 presents us with a carefully constructed picture of human
mortality and the overwhelming intensity with which this grasps people
in extremis.
Part 2 rubs the point in that this could happen to you at any point.
You could lose your friends and environment or even your life should
the world suddenly be transformed by events beyond any individual's
control. And the world is beyond your control - as evidenced by the
way the main characters' lives appear to be manipulated here.
Part 3 shows the characters crazed reactions of the characters when
they recognize the reality, the absurdityy and the unavoidability of
the threat to their lives.
Part 4 presents the characters as they die, more or less resigned to
their fate and then, the final twist, looks out of the book at you and
asks if maybe that isn't a bomb just about to descend on you.
Biographical Details
--------------------
Sure as hell get the impression that some of those scenes are taken
from the life of T R Pynchon Esq. Are there any parallels which can be
confirmed ro taken as read:
Slothrops = Pyncheons?
Haavaad = Cornell?
London 1945 = London circa 1965?
Poekler = Pynchon?
Osbie = Pynchon? (or any other permutations)
SS in 1945 = CIA in 1960s/70s (and why interested in P - and vice versa)
Pynchon is gay?
Mythographical (Cultural/Subcultural) Details
---------------------------------------------
Ok, there are all sorts of cultures visible in GR. Here's a partial
list:
Wartiem English Middle Class (the peope and their language)
Nazi (subdivisions?)
European Intellectual - theosophy, Rathenau, Lang (Mabuse etc), Liebig/Kekule
US Popular - Dumbo, King Kong, W of Oz, gum + nylons, hawaiian shirts
US Frontier/Pioneer - Crutchfield/Whappo, Wlliam Slothrop + Family
European Puritan (and its legacy) - Blicero, Katje, F v d Groov
US Jive: Zooties, Charlie Parker
(Writing) Technique
-------------------
Clearly, psychic dramatisation and recursive narrative nesting are a
major part of Pynchon's act. But there are other things:
Use of Scientific Metaphors - Pynchon use science exactly, in the
senses of unambiguously, correctly, without misleading and
suggestively (ergo open-endedly). Also his uses of scientific metaphor
are often enticingly paranoid.
Replication of Film Technique - apart from the flashback to dramatise
the psychic there are Busby Berkely dance numbers, the old I-feel-a-
song-coming-on trick, voice-overs (straight interior monologue),
fantasies, alternative perspectives on the `same' events and, last but
not least, that hidden camera trick where the reentry at the end where
we see the film which started shooting at the beginning of the section
corresponds to walking out of the film into the cinema.
Voice and Dialect - we get everything from bad Cockney (no, not Mrs Q
but Pirate's too frequent use of `me' for `my', excellent middle-class
Brit, down-at-heel, likes-to-pretend-to-be-fast but ultimately naive
and not-at-all-jive Yank (Slothrop in case you hadn't guessed), black
American, southern American, German intellectual Nazi, German lefty
etc etc. Pynchon's ear sounds more than convincing enough to me.
Anyone find any of his dialogue les than credible and if so why?
Others?
Children Who Are Learning To Die
--------------------------------
Why this title? Well, that's what Part 1 is all about, us, chidren
that we are, picking up on the fact that we, yes you and me, are also
going to die. This line ends the chorus sung in the pantomime. Someone
suggested that it reprises the Hansel and Gretel oven scene but it's
rather that both scenes reprise the same image, viz: children naively
stumbling into the house of Death and having to tell it to fuck itself
in order to escape. But only temporarily. Even if they manage to kick
death into the oven she will always be waiting for them, always have
that oven hot and ready. It is a fitting end to Part 1, representing
the setting out of the gorund for the question which is at the heart
of the book. The presence of Death, it's unavoidability has been
established. The next steps are to accept that you too are condemned,
to decide what you are going to do about it (in most cases it seems to
be panic) and then . . . to die.
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list