perspective detective

[jbor]

>From: "s~Z" <keith at pfmentum.com> 

> "I think Pynchon is very interested in . . ."
>
> Is interest related to intent?

I see what you're getting at so I'll elaborate. Certainly Pynchon makes
choices in creating his text: I don't for a moment believe that the work he
has produced is somehow accidental, or unintentional, or automatist. There
is that element of randomness in the final section when he draws on the
Tarot layouts to try to resolve the narrative, but he has *chosen* this path
as well I suppose. But, the fact that he tries to go with this aleatory
method, and that he propels himself-as-author into the narrative to admit it
(and his dissatisfaction with it @ 738.11) to the reader is significant imo.
(This self-consciousness of the author *within* the textual narrative is
another characteristic of postmodern fiction. Pynchon had earlier
characterised himself as a clown "flirting away through the mirrorframe" @
122; at another point he refers parenthetically to the ironic sentimentality
of the "voice speaking" 302.10 -- it is the *narrative* "voice". There are
metaphoric, or meta-, representations of the authorial process/project too:
Osbie's *camera* following Katje long-legged around the rooms; the *spy*
watching Darlene and Slothrop "through the crack in the orange shade" in
their lovenest at Mrs Quoad's @ 120; Pirate's *fantasist-surrogate* "gift"
etc.)

Pynchon has also made choices in regard to characters, setting, themes and
so forth. He has chosen the particular *historical* setting (WWII) -- and it
is 'real' enough in the text -- but has adopted a new *historiographical*
approach to the material. Linda Hutcheon contends that postmodern fiction
(her term is "historiographic metafiction") "represents not just a world of
fiction, however self-consciously presented as a constructed one, but also a
world of public experience." (*The Politics of Postmodernism*, p.38) It
aligns closely with Alain Robbe-Grillet's conception of the "new novel"
also. In his essay entitled 'On Several Obsolete Notions' (1957)
Robbe-Grillet notes that Sartre, who "had seen the dangers of a moralizing
literature, advocates a *moral* literature, which claimed only to awaken
political awareness by stating the problems of our society, but which would
escape the spirit of propaganda by returning the reader to his [sic]
liberty." (*For a New Novel: Essays on Fiction*, p. 41) It is in this sense
that Pynchon doesn't create propaganda or "moralise", doesn't judge and
condemn, but simply represents and forces or permits his readers to make
decisions and meta-decisions about "morality" for themselves.

The subjective perspectives of the characters are juxtaposed one with
another but an overall authorial perspective, or judgement, is resisted, or
rebuked, or admitted as just another perspective within the
aesthetic/historical frame. For example, the gold wedding ring Pokler gives
to the "random woman" after the Dora prisoners have been liberated is, from
Pokler's perspective, a final renunciation of his dream of regaining his
ideal family setup withe Leni and Ilse. But from the emaciated woman's
perspective it is just a meal ticket, something which can be traded for
food, shelter or transport (433). Pynchon gives both perspectives in the
text but leaves it to the reader to join the dots, make the moral
connections. And, because the indeterminacy of "Ilse's" identity is never
resolved (because Pokler refuses to ask, suppresses his suspicions, her
imminent admission of the 'truth' @ 430), these moral connections are always
going to be tenuous, multiple possibilities accrue. If she is just Ilse and
Pokler is in fact fantasising Weissmann's machinations and apparent
exploitation of his pedophilic impulses, then Pokler's responsibility looms
large and can perhaps be extended to his role in the V-2 program which
exploits the labour of the concentration camp inmates. If she is just a
hired substitute each time and Weissmann really is pulling his chain then
his culpability is lessened somewhat. There are clues both ways, some which
Pokler picks up and some which he doesn't -- such as the changes in "Ilse's"
appearance, her apparent coquettishness with him, Weissmann's spontaneous
act of kindness in signing the furlough form and marking it "after
hostilities end" -- and so forth. It is the *reader* who decides who is
guilty and who is innocent, or, indeed, *whether* such definitive judgements
can ever be made.

Similarly, the final days of Blicero on the Luneburg Heath are presented
from a range of perspectives: Blicero's own, Katje's, Gottfried's, Pokler's,
Thanatz's, Greta's. Pynchon gets his camera/spyglass in on a couple of
occasions too. But it's important to recognise the contexts in which each
character is viewing the goings-on. Greta, the aged and fallen movie
icon/procuress/murderess/prostitute, recalls her role in the testing of the
Imipolex shroud for Blicero but her own psychotic neuroses get in the way
and blur her vision and understanding of events. Thanatz, her pimp, is
similarly self-involved, paranoid. It is an error to take Greta's
nightmarish recollection, or Thanatz's erotically-charged observations, for
Pynchon's pov: the reader who is forced into using what these characters
*say* as justification of his interpretation is really clutching at straws
imo. More reliable witness -- of *Blicero's* intentions at least -- is
provided by Gottfried and Katje, and in those scenes in which Blicero's
perspective actually figures, such as the earlier one at 93-99, or the final
goodnight between Blicero and Gottfried at 721-4 which happens *after* Greta
and Thanatz have seen him, and in which Blicero is able, finally, to
acknowledge Gottfried's love.

So, to answer your question, yes, imo "interest" *is* related to "intent",
but neither of these denote 'opinion' or 'judgement'.

best