SPHERE to Eternity

[rj]

rj/tf
> > 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. 

I'll try to put it another way for you. A reading which connects
McLintic Sphere with Ornette Coleman is an incorrect reading according
to Mr Hollander. A reader who responds to the explicit cues given in the
text -- Sphere's "hand-carved ivory saxophone," the "new sound" of his
group, "no piano", music vaguely expressive of "African nationalism," --
has been misdirected, deliberately misled by Mr Pynchon. If this reader
continues to interpret McLintic Sphere as Ornette Coleman they do not
possess the "magic eye": they have been duped. Any reading which sees in
the portrayal of Sphere elements of Coleman, or Bird, is, in Mr
Hollander's view, an erroneous reading, for to sustain his thesis about
V. and the Baroness McLintic Sphere must be always and only Theolonius
Monk. 

This is far from the model of critical pluralism which we are presuming
to endorse; it is the privileging of one, definitive reading above and
beyond all others as *the* correct interpretation. Not only that, it is
a singular interpretation which relies on the explaining away of
explicit textual evidence as being deliberately "misleading" (as in the
Reader Trap theory). This is not a valid model imo. If I wanted to
conduct an equal amount of research and say that, no, I think the
depiction of Sphere is based on the life and musical achievement of
Ornette Coleman, or Charlie Parker, or Dizzy Gillespie, and that the
name "Sphere", though it is coincidentally Theolonius Monk's middle
name, is simply a reference to the globalism and completeness inherent
in McLintic's attitude to life and the world, or is a reference to some
poem where "dizzy sphere" is a pertinent phrase, Mr Hollander would
reject this as an incorrect interpretation. If I were to say that
McLintic Sphere is a composite character, drawing on biographical and
stylistic elements of Coleman, Monk and Park, which is what I will say
for the sake of argument, Mr Hollander similarly rejects this reading as
one where I have been "misled" by the text, and conclude that I "lack
the trained, or magic, eye." 

I am not saying that Mr Hollander's reading of the influence of
Theolonius Monk on Mr P's portrayal of McLintic Sphere in *V.* is wrong.
I agree with it, as one possible source. However, the upshot of his
essay is that *my* reading of McLintic Sphere as a fictional character,
as a composite of several legendary jazz figures but ultimately a
product of Mr P's literary imagination, makes me a reader "lacking the
trained, or magic, eye."

I am not harsh; I am generous. I accept Mr Hollander's initial insight
as one of several possibilities, though not the biographical and
political interpretations he tries to extrapolate from it (the
"historical situation - though never mentioning it in the text" -- why
isn't it mentioned in the text?) In proceeding from the initial insight
to the "historical situation" he wishes to foreground Mr Hollander is
necessarily discrediting and discarding all those other, very
legitimate, and textually-reinforced, possibilities. In this respect it
is Mr Hollander's approach which is both exclusivist and "harsh".

best