GRGR(3) talking dog 44.2

[Paul Mackin]

Yes, the whole thing's very surreal or unreal--even if by some chance
Keith's was the ONLY interpretation--that is, there was no talking dog at all
but only Pointsman projecting one--because what I ask is MORE out of place
than a behaviorist positing consciousness in a dog???? In a human either
for that matter though that seems unavoidable.

							P.


On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, keith woodward wrote:

> rj:
> >I'll take David Morris's cue and assume that this is indeed a request
> >for clarification rather than a petty dismissal. Keith seemed to be
> >arguing the Pointsman-as-framing-narrator theory as an alternative,
> >rather than a complementary, reading to Doug's. Perhaps I was wrong?
> >Keith's subsequent post certainly seems to signal, if not this, then a
> >shift:
> >
> 
> I wasn't dismisssing you at all, rj (I'm not quite *that* petty).  I have,
> however, looked over my earlier posts on this thread, and I haven't changed
> my position: there appears to be more than one reading possible of said
> passages.  Alternative/complementary: potato/potawto, I wasn't rejecting
> Doug's reading.  I think Doug's objection was basically that I was
> over-reading, which I wasn't trying to do: rather, I was just trying to
> suggest that it is uncertain where the narrative is coming from.
> 
> >Yes, but what of the dog narrating and interspersing Pointsman's
> >language? As David points out, you don't allow equal credence to the
> >surreal possibilities in the narrative process.
> 
> This is certainly possible, but it's also the conclusion that we arrive at
> with Doug's initial post, that this is the dog's narrative and that,
> therefore, for whatever reason, Pointsman's language is being used to
> narrate it.  I haven't discounted the surreal at all.  A surface read of
> the episode seems to require an acceptance of the surreal (again, these are
> all implications of Doug's posts on the subject), and I'm not rejecting it.
> Rather, I'm suggesting that the surreal reading isn't as stable as it first
> appears.
> 
> >In contrast, Pynchon's postmodern narratological mode could be called
> >cinematographic. The scene switches back and forth between a range of
> >characters' povs, both physiologically and intellectually.
> 
> I've been suggesting this throughout this thread, re: the possibility that
> Pointsman and Mexico narrate the thoughts of the dog, and the equal;
> possibility that the dog narrates.
> 
> Keith W
> 
>