COL49 _Courier's Tragedy_

[MalignD at aol.com]

RJ:

<<But the "promiser" in _Godot_ is surely "Godot" himself, in whose existence 
and appearance there is a persistent faith, for want of a better term, just 
as the "promiser" in _Lot49_ is Pierce Inverarity.>>

Faith in Godot's existence and appearance doesn't vouchsafe that existence.  
It is that Godot doesn't exist and will surely not come but is awaited anyway 
because, finally, there's nothing else to do, (I can't go on, I'll go on) 
that gives the situation it's power, that makes it tragic and absurd.  Pierce 
Inverarity is (in the reality of the novel) an actual person, now deceased.  
He may have done no more than name Oedipa executor of his will.  I find the 
comparison strained. 

Re Stoppard--

I'm sorry, but to classify Stoppard an absurdist is to misread his work to an 
alarming degree.  I know this point of view doesn't allow for much useful 
debate, but there it is.  To call Jumpers "absurdist"--I don't know what to 
say to that, other than no it is not.  

If one insists that all comedy (Jumpers is certainly comedic) is to some 
degree absurd, well then fine; but the words lose all their usefulness.  One 
might as well say all theater is absurdist, since it's absurd for someone to 
stand on a stage in make-up and pretend to be someone else, and even more 
absurd for people to spend money to observe such a spectacle.

<<Stoppard himself hasn't gone much beyond expressing admiration for Beckett 
...>>

In fact he's spoken a fair amount about Beckett and his influence, which he 
decribes as stylistic and theatrical, not philosophical.  In one interview he 
said:

 "I can see a lot of Beckettian things in all my work, but they're not 
actually to do with the image of two lost souls waiting for something to 
happen, which is why most people connect Rosencrantz with Waiting for Godot 
because they had this scene in common ... I wasn't thinking so much of what 
[Beckett's plays] are about so much as the way in which Beckett expresses 
himself and the bent of his humour.  I find Beckett deliciously funny ..."  
Elsewhere, he says:

"The early plays of Beckett are significant for me in that they didn't rely 
on elaborate theatrical paraphernalia.  They redefined minimums, they show us 
how much can be done with little."  He says also, "I'm much more like Terence 
Rattigan than Cocteau or Arrabal."

<<The film version of _Ros and Guil_ which Stoppard directed? The 
'Shakespeare in Love' screenplay?>>

I was thinking of theater work.  To these you name, one should add as well 
his screenplay for Nabokov's Despair, directed by Fassbinder.

David Monroe:

<<See what I mean?  This alleged "imperfection" might well be read as a 
disappointment brought about by the alleged reneging on some, if not 
necessarily implied (though not necessarily NOT implied), perceived, at 
least, promise, on the author's, on the text's part ... >>

I could have been clearer about what I called "imperfection."  I have no 
problem with the book's ending being undetermined.  I think, however, that 
there is an absence of craft in the construction of the novel.  Let me offer, 
as a counter-example, Pale Fire, a book in most ways different from (and 
superior to) COL49, but useful, I think to the point I'm making.  There are 
many questions left after one finishes Pale Fire and the more one thinks 
about them, the more curious and interesting they become.  This is because 
Nabokov has so meticulously created the questions for the attentive and 
curious reader to discover.  Clues are planted, threads are placed to be 
followed and, if they are, they lead to more questions and new threads.  In 
the end, final answers remain illusive, but the chase is exhiliarating and 
fun and one has the feeling always that there's yet more to be discovered, 
which is probably true.  

In COL 49, none of that is the case.  Too little information is given about 
things from outside Oedipa's point of view, for a reader to form an 
independent hunch.  There is no mystery, really, no clues.  A reader knows 
too little about Inveratity to have any real idea whether he would create 
such a situation for Oedipa, even less as to why.  Does a reader have 
evidence of Oedipa as a paranoid personality?  She sees a shrink, for all 
that's worth.  Is an historical Trystero a possiblity?  It would seem in the 
novel's presented world, possible.  And then it ends.  Could be any of those 
things.  Does a reader have any basis to suspect or argue, say, that it was 
Inverarity toying with her all along, over and above the other possibilites?  
No.  There's no lingering interest, nothing for a reader to wonder over, no 
mystery, at all; we're just not told.