SPHERE to Eternity

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> tf
> > But the case is being made for fictional characters
> > referencing historical figures.
> 
> The same principle applies with corporations you said.

I guess I did, but I should not have. I was trying not to
broaden the discussion but find a focus, sorry. 

> 
> > We seem far apart on Geli.
> > But Sphere seems to have more common ground. It is a short
> > essay a few of us have read and we can discuss separate from
> > the ongoing grgr.
> 
> OK.

OK!

> 
> *****
> 
> >From the essay:
> 'Does McClintic Sphere in *V.* Stand for Thelonious Monk?'
>                                                by
>                                        Charles Hollander
> 
> http://www.achilles.net/~howardm/pynchon.html
> 
> > Wendell "Mucho" Maas, Clayton "Bloody" Chiclitz, for but two examples. In Lot 49, Pynchon means
> >         for us to summon political figures Wendell Willkie and Henry De Lamar Clayton, on the subtextual
> >         level.
> 
> I disagree with this. These connections are not explicit. The characters
> are developed in the text as fictional individuals who bear no
> relationship to these prior personages.

I agree on the mucho mass and bloody chiclitz, so I think
these would be examples of half names. Right? So we are
concerned with Clayton and Wendell, right?  


> 
> > Also in Lot 49, Pynchon half-names "Secretaries James and Foster and Senator Joseph," and
> >         similarly means for us to decrypt them as Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal, Secretary of State
> >         John Foster Dulles, and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
> 
> Yes. Oedipa is referring to the actual political leaders of her student
> days. This is a different type of reference altogether. These
> Secretaries and Senators are not characters in the text, they are
> historical personages, referred to as such.

Yes, I see the difference, but do these references tell us
anything about Pynchon's use of names? His use of half names
or how about that Clayton? and that Wendell? 


> 
> > By naming his jazzman McClintic Sphere,
> >         Pynchon signifies he wants us to decode to Thelonious Sphere Monk in the subtext.
> 
> I have a problem with "Pynchon signifies he wants us to decode". It is a
> convoluted way of saying something very simple: "Pynchon might be
> alluding to". 

Seems like a small point, but I think allude too makes
sense, right? 

And, why is this signification of a different timbre to
> mention of the "hand-carved ivory saxophone" linking Sphere to Coleman?

Good question??

> 
> The biographical data is well-detailed, but the stretch from Sphere's
> mistress to the lady V. is an enormous one. Nowhere in the text of *V.*
> is McLintic Sphere even cognizant of the existence of V., let alone is
> she a mistress of his.

Yes, this a tough one. How is this supported? V. does so
many things, is so many things that her "history" is almost
bound to match some part of Sphere's lady. 


> 
> >         First, indicative naming is the use of a half-name where a fictional character leads us to a real historical
> >         person. Second, the textual reference leads to something extra-textual that is important for understanding
> >         the work at hand - what I term Pynchon's misdirection. Finally, this misdirection leads to a historical
> >         situation - though never mentioning it in the text.
> 
> The critic relies on a notion of "misdirection" to make his point. As
> with the Incorrect German Fallacy and the Reader Trap False Syllogism,
> the critic's approach relies on Mr P. making mistakes, or on the
> assumption that what is actually written in the text is not what is
> meant, for his interpretation to hold together. It is a critical
> reinscription of the text in the image of the critic's own persuasions.

Misdirection and assumption are legitimate criticisms, but
the reinscription claim may be leveled at lots of critics
and doesn't necessarily say very much, but the other two,
not sure if the critic is claiming that Pynchon is making
mistakes, but the other two arguments should be answerable. 


> 
> > We see, then, that McClintic Sphere is not a one-to-one stand-in for Ornette Coleman, and how and why
> >         Pynchon means Sphere to signify Thelonious Monk and his mistress, the Baroness. We see how
> >         Pynchon's use of irony and camouflage will mislead readers lacking the trained, or magic, eye.
> 
> This final statement smacks of an elitist approach, an imposition of
> interpretation, one which is in stark contradiction to the notion that
> the character of McLintic Sphere stands for "those who view themselves
> as the disinherited, the preterite, the passed-over in American
> society." The essayist seems to be saying that only the privileged can
> understand the text, those with the "trained, or magic eye", and he is
> the High Priest who holds the key. This is creating another
> Elite/preterite scenario in which the critic has placed himself on a
> side diametrically opposite to Mr P's acknowledged preterite sympathies.

This is a little harsh rj. The magic eye, trained eye is
playful, creative, makes the essay very interesting and I
like the analogy. Elitist, privileged, elect/preterite, we
shouldn't get far if we stick our noses in this jar rabbit,
said pooh, this is kid of a  meta issue that will only
divert out attention away from the essay. 


> 
> What is framed as a question in the title of the article has become a
> fait accompli by essay's end. It is a closed interpretation, and does
> not do justice to the subtlety and breadth of Mr P's characterisation of
> McLintic Sphere in *V.* 

I don't think the essay hopes or claims to do justice to Mr.
P's Sphere. 

The biographical information on Theolonius Monk
> is well-presented, however.


Of course! this kind of criticism takes lots of research. I
think it is fascinating and actually, I think the real value
of Mr. Hollender's work is not names, half names and what we
have been touching on here, but something far more valuable. 


PS I'll be in Boston, at and around Harvard for the next few
days if anyone wants to meet. 

TF




> 
> best