SPHERE to Eternity

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> 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.

Always and only? Now that doesn't make sense to me. 


> 
> 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). 

Yes I never care for those, the author is deliberately
misleading us or trapping us ideas either, but authors do
this, the problem is how can we confirm it, how often, and
so on, and have critics discovered more "reader traps" and
the like in the last few years because this is something
critical tastes, critical ideas are strong on at the moment
and does this open a door to explaining away what is in the
text in favor of what is not? Major problem for critics
these days. In terms of privileging one reading, I don't
know that Mr. Hollander claims to be a pluralist, I am, so I
share your concern, and while I think it a legitimate
objection, one we can discuss, I am only trying to get the
arguments out first. BTW, as a pluralist, I'm not trying to
convince anyone, but rather, trying to get people to
understand if not agree with other positions.  


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 think the argument he make are best when there is, as
lawyers in some places say, a preponderance of the evidence.
Think Mr. Hollander is in a difficult position in attempting
to deal with Mr. P's politics because Mr. P's biographicals
and so forth are so absentee. That being said, political
criticism deserves a place at the table and as Doug stated,
there are others that have independently written essays that
are in accordance with Mr. Hollander's work and are very
valuable indeed. One such essay is included in those legal
essays that were referenced here a while back, David
Thoreen's essay. I have read Thoreen's dissertation and the
chapter on VL is quite remarkable and quite similar to Mr.
Hollander's approach, and it is rather remarkable that the
two critics, to the best of my knowledge have never
discussed their independent but common approaches to
Pynchon. 

> 
> 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."

OK, were back to the privileged thing. 

> 
> 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


OK, I think I get your objection on this point.