SPHERE to Eternity

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> tf
> > 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?
> 
> Wendell and Clayton are relatively common first names. As is Geli. They
> are not overt referents to historical personages in that the characters
> in the novel to which the names are attached bear no resemblance
> whatsoever -- in situation, achievement or attitude -- to the historical
> personages cited.

Not overt, not at all, perhaps? But I think the idea is that
they are not overt references, but rather indirect
references that are involved in a sub-textual story that may
have little relevance (in fact, as in the case with geli for
example, may have nothing really to do with the fictional
character, the plot, the themes of the various internal (non
sub-textual plots). This is where get lost sometimes. Often
the sub-textual story is not there for me, I don't have the
magic-eye or whatever, the magic-ear to hear the echoes or I
lack the schema or personal experience with the history or
use what ever "reader response" theory you like, and as in
the case with Geli here, and sometimes the echo or whatever
is too faint and the idea too jarring for me to accept, as
in the case for Geli. I am not the best person to explain
these ideas, as I'm sure you realize from my posts on
apogee, I can get all mixed up and off onto my own ideas in
the middle of confusing everyone about another list member's
post, but be that as it may, I think the sub-textual story
that Mr. Hollander is focused on, is not an uncommon
approach. As you know K. Hume writes beautiful essays (quite
different than Mr. Hollander's) that make use of a
sub-textual story. 


> 
> > 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 guess it is harsh and I do see the playful, pop culture aspect of the
> "magic eye" analogy, as with the opening comparison of Mr P to Wile E.
> Coyote. (Btw I'd say that *this* is somewhat harsh. I'd be more inclined
> to characterise Mr P as Wile E's nemesis myself. Meep meep.)




> 
> Nevertheless, the Elect/preterite duality is trademark Pynchon, and Mr
> Hollander has allowed his interpretive approach to fall directly into
> this frame -- the Elect reader who has the "trained, or magic, eye" as
> opposed to the preterite reader who does not. The category of Elect in
> this instance is not vouchsafed by God, nor by the author, nor by the
> text I submit, but by the critic. Mr Hollander makes reference to the
> categories himself as part of his argument, in the penultimate paragraph
> of the essay in particular, so I believe it is quite legitimate to
> address this issue.
> 
> best


OK, I just think it may simply divert us away from the core
discussion.