GRGR(6) - Ep. 15 Reader Dissonance.

[rj]

Paul, on whether Slothrop, Katje et. al. are well-developed characters:

> I wouldn't attempt to
> question any of the points or claim that the respective psyches are not
> brimming over with  fascinating  bits of heredity, conditionings, and
> repressions--yes they're what the story is about. What I refuse to do
> however is acknowledge  that there is any good reason why I should be
> likely to want to make moral judgements of anyone based on this kind of
> mental detail alone (if that's what rj is implying). Rather I find that
> the only reaction possible is  acceptance of each of these magnificent
> creations as works of art, infinitely intriguing on this occasion or that,
> but somehow not adding up to likable or dislikable characters. The art is
> good. The people are not quite people.  

I think this line of argument comes a real cropper when you try to apply
it to _M&D_.

But even so, how often in real life do you get quite so much information
about an individual? I mean, I don't really have such vivid access to my
own subconscious, let alone anyone else's. And, in GR we do get to see a
lot of what the characters do and say as well: what Slothrop was like in
that Roseland Ballroom, what he's like at his job, with his women, his
desk, his food; what Katje was up to, both officially and clandestinely,
in Holland and London. And, there's historical context galore: it's
WWII; Slothrop's an American N.C.O.(right acronynm?) on secondment in
London; Katje works both as a Nazi and a Resistance operative; Blicero's
in charge of a rocket stand firing at Old Blighty. There *were* people
who did these things, if not these characters exactly. And we do have
assumptions about the individuals who did these sorts of things (don't
we?), even though these moral judgements may not emerge in personal
terms (except for Hitler, perhaps, but what sort of definitiveness are
you arguing for the 'characterisation' of Hitler in history and myth,
for he too now exists only textually) but are instead offset to a group
(those dirty quislings, that wascally SS) or socio-cultural or
-political level (vile Nazis, imperialist swine, Machiavellian
corporations). What I mean to say by the notion that Pynchon is "pushing
the envelope" with these characters is that he's depicting the localised
minutiae of individual lives (imagined personal histories) rather than
sweeping historical panoramas (official versions), and asking us to look
for the excluded middles in the equations which take us from Katje
Borgesius to heroic Resistance operative, and Dominus Blicero to evil
Nazi monster, in our modern Western ethico-historical pantheon.

It's a little too easy to say, "Well, it's just art, so check in all
your normal codes of morality as you enter and enjoy the ride. The Nazis
aren't real, they're just for show." A bit too avant-gardist and
dilettantish and cheaply nihilistic I think. A-and, the Holocaust is a
pretty tender subject to try to fob off so lightly. (As we've discovered
hereabouts on many an occasion.)

I agree with you. I don't 'like' or 'dislike' Blicero, or Katje, or
Slothrop. (Well, actually, I do have favourites, but that's a little
different.) What I mean is, I don't see this character as intrinsically
or ultimately good and that one as evil: but it isn't just because
they're fictitious that my moral pendulum isn't swinging. The gut reflex
is to like Slothrop and Katje, to forgive them unconditionally for any
number of sins -- not the least reason being that they're the focal
characters in a novel and we expect to empathise with them, but also
because of all our culturally and socially-acquired biases -- but what
they're saying and doing and thinking in the narrative, once I work out
what the hell's going on, suddenly forces me to a do a double-take. And
vice versa with Pointy and Pud and ol' Blic'. It's my moral pendulum
which I'm suddenly being forced to consider. In relation to the
characters as individuals. And, by inference, to real people. To
history. And, yes, even to Hitler. What I see in Pynchon's characters is
a commonalty, the flaws and foibles of humanity depicted, deplored, and
yet vindicated for all that.

best