Deaths in GR

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Thomas Vieth writes:

> Well, first of all, superficiality can only be attributed to
> surfaces; and surfaces are of the appeared world. Don't confuse
> appearance (or even epitome, for that matter) with the underlying
> reality of being.

I spot a herring here and I don't like the look of it. Care to explain
in precise and comprehensive detail what the phrase `underlying
reality of being' is meant to mean? as opposed to `the appeared
world'? I am intrigued by this dichotomy of yours (I assume you intend
a dichotomy here or have I misunderstood?). Which bits of this world
you and I both seem to share is `appeared world' as opposed to
`underlying reality'? And, while I am asking, what is it with
appearances that my `appeared world' and your `appeared world' happen
to be the same world? Or have I got that wrong? Can I only take it on
trust as a working hypothesis? Do tell.

> With regard to narrator(s) one has to keep in mind that there is
> such a thing as authorial design; that is to say it could help to
> every once in a while focus on matters such as juxtaposition. The
> whole construction (eg mandala-like narrative structure, contextual
> and/or structural juxtapositions, etc.)  certainly reveals views
> from a metalevel.

Err, I think that was my point. Your initial posting seemed to be
suggesting that one could infer Pynchon's position from the various
occasions on which he makes the same point. However, each time he
makes a point the character/narrator who is used to present it lends a
particular colour to its significance. If you want to draw a general
conclusion re Pynchon's beliefs then I want to see a good argument
(well, ok any argument will do as a start) to explain why the various
utterances or thoughts he places in the mouths and minds of his
characters/narrators all add up to an endorsement rather than
representing say, a common misconception, or carefully placed
disinformation. In other words the last note did not argue your case
and, so far at least, this note has only succeeded in acknowledging
that omission.

> The multiplicity of voices in GR can on one level be a symbolization
> of the white noise of information theory.

On the contrary, when we ploughed through part 1 in the group read I
can recall very few occasions where a change of context or narrative
voice was used merely (or even partly) to add noise. In almost every
case the change represents a shift of perspective either from
character to character or into a character's memories, dreams or
fantasies. Far from adding to noise they serve to clarify by expanding
passing thoughts, filling in details of prior (or sometimes future)
events or establishing how a character views or responds to the
situation/character from which the focus of attention was shifted. I
think talk of white noise in GR is mostly myth.

> On another level this can be seen as satirical stock goods USED BY
> TRP AS AUTHOR for reasons not identical but reminiscent of certain
> acts by Robin Williams (eg in Good Morning Vietnam) where he steps
> aside, assumes a new posture and voice and for an instance is
> somebody else, yet everybody can see that it still is whatshisname
> (the character, not Williams, yet this character is also certainly
> IN STYLE) If that weren't the case you'd not be able to even
> remotely talk of a Pynchonean style.

Yes indeed, the various narrators adopt a particular critical position
and/or mode of presentation. But this is a truism since if they did
not lace their narrative with different commentary or presentation
styles then they would not be different narrators. What would be
interesting would be a clear catalogue of these different narrative
`styles' and `roles' and an indication of how they correlate i.e. can
we always associate a particular voice with a given style of narration
and a given purpose in the telling (in fact how far can we distinguish
such different voices). It would be important to separate out places
where the narration is coloured by a character's `voice' from those
where the narration is from outside the character's perspective and
therefore qualifies as an echt narator. Also, scenes which conjure up
memories tend to drift from the characters' interior monologues into a
`straight' external narration, usually with an ambiguous hand over
from one to the next. So, sorting out exactly who is talking is
rendered tricky at some points if not actually ambiguous.

> But I'm slightly off the point. What I'm trying to say is that in
> the same way that paradoxes get solved on the next level up (as
> Douglas Hofstadter informs us) this is also true in many cases with
> TRP's writings. Radical pluralism (discussed in Wolgang Welsch where
> he talks about postmodernism w/regard to Lyotard) in my view
> inevitably leads to monism on a metalevel when thought all the way
> through.

I don't doubt that the plethora of ideas and perspectives expressed in
Pynchon's writing can be reduced to a relatively small set of mutually
compatible beliefs when analyzed. The problem is not in assessing and
accepting the truth of this statement - a limited study of the book
(say a year's reading) can convince you of that - but rather with
establishing exactly what these beliefs are. As for your general point
re radical pluralism and monism, I don't really care much whether this
is a necessary truth or a contingency which in Pynchon's case falls
the way of unity, since such a truth is only proved in so far as we
are capable of showing *how* it attains such status (eat that pudding,
Brigadier). But again I suspect you are arguing over a false
dichotomy. Why should anyone think that a work which employs a variety
of modes of presentation and narrative styles would not have any unity
or purpose? (in fact how would anyone go about writing a novel which
has no unity? - one which is worth reading, that is?). And of all
novelists Pynchon would be one of the last candidates I would choose
as author of an undirected ramble. The *plot* may drift all over the
place in GR but the *novel* makes its points as sharply and forcefully
as you could ever wish for.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.