Trying Crying

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Andrew's interesting take on the flaws of CL49 prompts some further thoughts. 

 I'd liketo try to defend it against some of those charges. Andrews objections seem to boil 
down to a lack of *development* in the novel.  He tells us it is programmed, cartoony, 
and obvious.  
 My premisses differ somewhat from Andrew's, and probably account for some of the 
different value judgments we lay upon CL49's ravelled tresses.  First of all, we seem to 
agree that CL49 stands somehow apart from the axis  which kabobs the other three novels.  
I think that is because, strictly speaking, it's not a novel, but a novella, or a long
 short story.  It is well known that CL49 was marketed as a novel by its publish
er
 (Lippincott?) for the economic purposes, but it was originally published as a long short 
story.   So we can't expect the same development of character as we can justly demand 
from a novel.  There are lots of magnificent novellas (a creaky term to be sure), Billy 
Budd, for example, where one could easily criticize its 2D characters, but we
 realize it's not to the point.

Rather than applying idiosyncratic criteria, such as how much *poetry* or how many
 *epiphanies*, etc. we can count--all too subjective, IMO, I think it's better to conceive of 
the work as a whole.  What is it?  I've already played with the conceit that CL49 is a book 
about how to read a Thomas Pynchon book.  Its compression, which I agree is one of its 
clearest features, comes from this orientation towards his other fiction.We might want to
 see it as a kind of-- allegory--of Pynchon's fiction.  If we do, then its compression seems 
appropriate to the genre, and its *cartoony* characters seem exactly the right type for an 
allegory.

Another genre we might usefully compare CL49 to is the fairy tale, a la, ALICE IN 
WONDERLAND--another work to which it bears great resemblence.  We would hardly
 find cause to criticize ALICE for lack of character development, though one could 
 argue, I guess, that its poetry is superior.  In such a work as ALICE or CL49 the
 idea of *epiphany* it seems to me, is diffused throughout the strange logic which orders
 the world behind the looking glass.  It is an epiphany of the modes by which we construct 
messages, draw conclusions, seek ontological stability, and the epiphany involves how 
fragile those modes are, in both books.

Another wrinkle on the epiphany is that even in the terms Andrew discusses it, I think
 Oedipaa clearly has one in her encounter with old Mr. Thoth, in a scene which IMO 
specifically comments on the work's central epiphany concerning metaphor.

 ( BTW, Henry and you other Anubis threaders: Mr. Thoth--another old sailor (thinking 
of the Dansker in Billy Budd here) connects up w/ Hermes, Anubis and the images of 
communication and sailing y'all have been playing with in that thread.)

When Andrew writes-- 
>otherwise it's a straight story from A to err ... Y and all points in between  
--I confess to confusion.  Am I missing another joke behind the joke you're trying to 
make?  One can't really call this a straight line story, not with a straight face anyway.  

When Andrew compares the multitudinous narrative voices of GR to CL49 he fails to 
consider the uniqueness of GR.  One could make the exact same point w/ respect to GR 
and VINELAND, and almost the exact same point  w/ respect V  But, again, we realize 
that that point isn't the point.  GR creates a narrative voice much more varied than the 
voice of FINNEGAN'S WAKE, too, or MOBY-DICK,  But that's obviously not a 
productive way of comparing these works.

Andrew bewails lack of spine tingling, but my own personal spine tingles when I realize 
Oedipaa looks like the echo court statue; when that ashtray is *read* for us; when I think 
of Mr. Thoth feeling his god; when I mediate on the implications of the Remedios Varos 
painting; when Driblette disappears, u.s.w.  Spine tingling is as a tingling spine does.

Finally, when Andrew asserts--
>Poetry is only permissible in the right voice.
--I reach for my gun.

Let's keep playing around with these thoughts.

john m

Andrew's post quoted:
<little snip>
>
>I agree TCOL49 is weaker on these three counts and I will amplify:
>
>i) the ideas presented too obviously/glibly/simplistically
>
>It's a short book. So, the presentation is compressed and simplified.
>And that's not just the presentation of his ideas. The characters in
>such a short book have to work too hard effecting the plot to allow
>time for them to dally and reveal something characteristic, human,
>lifelike. So, they reveal the fault usually (and in many ways
>unfairly) tacked onto GR of being 2-d cartoons. In GR most of the
>characters have their moment of epiphany - our epiphany, not theirs -
>where their response in a given situation shows something fundamental
>about human nature. Contrast this with Oedipa's trail through the
>purgatory on the night she meets her anarchic Jesus to her own
>revelation (which does not happen in the book). It's all as programmed
>as John's Apocalypse. There's no depth of character revealed here
>whatever the depth of experience of human (or divine) nature and
>humanity (or divinity).
>
>ii) the narrative voices in GR are much sharper
>
>In GR each section of narrative really seems to belong to somebody or
>something.You know when you are entering Roger's world or Jessica's.
>You are presented with the weakness of the sadist, the strength of the
>masochist. You get to taste the E Coli which will give you release now
>and forever more. Even the anonymous narration comes in a variety of
>distinctive voices, none of them individuals but definite types: the
>huckster, the romantic poet, the pornographer, the sentimental
>surrealist, the film buff, the camp director of epic theatre, the
>fool.
>
>In TCOL49 there is mostly plain simple narration. We get a play within
>a play for pyrotechnics and no explanation of what is going on.
>
>iii) the poetry is thereby confined to the poet narrator rather than
>infringing on the character's voices
>
>Poetry is only permissible in the right voice. Sharpening the voices
>in GR means that things are better contrasted, that we know where we
>stand as reader. It does not seem this way at first - in fact quite to
>the contrary because we don't know the voices. But, after some
>exposure, we know exactly who is talking to us. The poetic narrator is
>just one more voice, but it is one which is used with incredible
>precision. Switches from poet to comic and back constitute the most
>thrilling moments in GR.
>
>IN TCOL49 I not only recall less moments of poetry (although taking
>the term literally The Couriers Tragedy is hilarious `poetry') I also
>recall less balance, less control of the tone and voice. No
>spine-tingling as I read it, anyway, not like GR.
>
>
>Andrew Dinn
>-----------
>And though Earthliness forget you,
>To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
>To the rushing water speak:  I am.
>