V.V.(4) "under the rose" (23.24)

[jbor]

I think this chapter is interesting in terms of the development of Pynchon's
aesthetic vision. The transformation of the story 'Under the Rose' (written
'59, publ. '61) -- which is a Pynchonian transformation rather than a
Stencillic one I think -- and the way that Goodfellow, Porpentine ("Fat" and
"Tweed" indeed!) and the rest of the "spy/tourists" have become little more
than comic buffoons (the character Moldweorp disappears entirely, removing
the dignifying element of gentlemanly enemy/camaraderie), demonstrates the
transition from a colonial to a post-colonial perspective in Pynchon's
fiction.

In the early story the straight 3rd person narrative focuses exclusively on
Porpentine et. al.; in the recasting of the narrative in *V.* this drama is
subsidiary to the daily lives and thoughts of the locals who observe their
absurd machinations. In fact, without the early story it would be quite
difficult for the reader to piece together the course of events in the
espionage scenario at all: by downplaying the Eurocentricism the historical
significance is also devalued. For example, in 'Under the Rose' Porpentine
is merely "leery of the sun", and his ultimate demise is tragic, heroic. But
in *V.* he is a ridiculous sunburnt fool (65.21 , 83.4up , 91.7 ), his death
pointless and absurd. Goodfellow actually throws a bomb ("though it proved
of course to be a dud") in the story; in *V.* he only thinks about it.
(91.5up) The mention of Sarajevo in the early story, a seeming afterthought
which serves to promote traditional historiographical presumptions about
cause and effect and the preeminence of Western diplomacy, and which serves
to lionize Goodfellow somewhat, is deleted in the novel. In many respects
the telling in *V.* is actually a parody of the events described in 'Under
the Rose'.

While it may be that Stencil has chosen his "eight impersonations" in a
quest for greater objectivity -- impartiality, detachment -- what he does
not realise is that in taking on these guises, in giving each of these
"irrelevant" character/observers a voice and a perspective, he has actually,
and unintentionally, compromised both the integrity and the significance of
the tale; these characters and their travails encroach on the "action" which
is purportedly central to the narrative, and which would have been all that
his father's journals contained, to the point of virtual extinguishment.
Backdrop has become foreground. The various narrators' attitudes -- their
obliviousness, indifference or outright antipathy to the events they witness
-- are conveyed to the reader. The conclusions about "history" which the
reader draws from Stencil's second- or even third-hand fantasies are quite
different from those which Stencil is ostensibly formulating and following
up; certainly they are far removed from old Sidney's original purpose in
writing it all down in the first place. This transformation exemplifies a
distinct shift in Pynchon's historicism as well (given voice most explicitly
by Gebrail the carriage driver at 83.6-25. Here, rather than in Porpentine's
plight, in the fear of Fashoda, or in Kitchener and Khartoum, does Pynchon's
prose soar.)

The premonition Benny has about that certain "something ... going on under
the rose, maybe for longer and with more people than he would care to think
about" (23.24) is exactly what Pynchon is alerting the reader to here. All
the melodramas and infidelities of European diplomacy mean nought: life, for
waiters, barmaids and carriage drivers in Egypt, as much as for the European
spies and diplomats they serve, goes on regardless. History is much more
than simply the chronology of an elite, some Baedeker-tour, and it does not
exist independently of interpretation.

best

ps: Anyone else finding the pace of this reading incredibly slow?