COL49 - a good novel?

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Dave Monroe wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not, but ... but,
> well, ask, if the "mystery" of the Trystero is not
> solved within the novel, if its solution seemingly
> cannot be derived therefrom, is this a flaw, or might
> it perhaps indicate that something is beside the point
> here?  Again, I'm not for this notion of "red
> herrings," but ... but I also think that there may be
> a point to this seeming "diversion," as well, a
> certain blindness being implicated ...

I'll take this as a starting point, because this is essentially a reply to
MalignD's "general observations":

MalignD's point was not that COL49 was flawed because the puzzle of the Trystero
is not solved. He had made clear as much in his earlier general observations,
which I would like to address now.

MalignD

> Foremost, it struck me as not so much a novel as a draft of what, with
> rewrite, might have become a novel and, most frustrating, a very good novel.
> Alas.
>
> One big problem--the main problem, I guess--is that there are no characters,
> really, rather names on the page who speak, often unfiltered, for their
> creator and the ideas he's pursuing (e.g., the descriptive comparison,
> supposedly Oedipa's thoughts, comparing San Narciso to the circuit board of a
> radio, both to a "hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning").  There's a lot
> of that.  There may be arguments for it (i.e., the flatness of the characters
> corresponds to the dreary flatness of the twentieth century etc. ...) and I
> would buy them if the result worked.  But it doesn't.
>

I don't think it doesn't work at all, but then the reading of COL49 was when I
first fell in love with P's fiction. I certainly agree that whatever applaudable
abstract notions a novel might be based upon (this goes for any work of art, I
believe) - if it doesn't work it is no good, and I'd prefer an from an
intellectual point of view perhaps minor book whose premises I can easily discern
from page 1, if it manages to keep my interest. COL49, though, still manages to
keep my interest.

> A lot of what's supposed to be funny isn't (and, unfortunately, a lot of
> what's there is supposed to be funny).  Pynchon typically offers a comic
> scene (e.g., the scene with Metzger, Oedipa, and the can of hairspray), but
> what humor there is in in the idea of it; the writing itself isn't
> particularly funny or inspired.  Again, it feels tossed-off, incomplete.  Not
> one laugh to be had, for all the effort, from the Paranoids.

When I read this I had to think of a reading by Matt Ruff I attended a year ago
or so. I am not familiar with his work, but from what I heard him read I
developed the notion that Ruff had taken some of the stylistic features Pynchon
had introduced into literature and made a career out of it: "funny names",
"bizarre situations", the mixture of "high" and "low culture". Nothing wrong with
that, of course, but it wasn't funny. I am sure that my response was due to my
being familiar with Pynchon. Otherwise I would have probably thought Ruff's prose
was highly original. Re-reading some of the scenes in COL49 in the light of
MalignD's critique now I asked myself "Is this funny?" Entertaining, yes. But do
I laugh? Except for "The Courier's Tragedy", where I frequently found myself
laughing out loud once again - well, no, not really (on this level, I have to
add, there is still a language barrier). Perhaps, blasphemously speaking, COL49
can be understood as a decisive step in establishing the trademark
"Pynchonesque"?

> Oedipa's lack of substance drastically fails the novel in the night sequence
> in San Francisco which could have and should have been bleak, even
> terrifying, the book's center and heart.  Instead, once again, it feels
> rushed, sketched, a series of ideas, rather than incidents, happening not to
> a woman but to a cipher.

I think this is correct. This could have been a scene where, along with Oedipa,
the reader feels that he/she loses the ground under his/her feet, that every
assumption he or she might have entertained as a certainty about the world we're
living in should have been slowly but irrevocably undermined. And I agree that it
is mostly due to the summary-like way the sequence is told and to the fact that
Oedipa doesn't manage to attract our unconditional commitment that it doesn't
work as it should have. As MalignD says, it feels like the draft for a great
scene.

> The structure, the themes, all struck me again as original and smart and
> penetrating, the ending once again disturbing, frustrating, and right.   But
> the book's deepest themes (and best writing) are in Pynchon's voice, with
> "Oedipa said," or "Oedipa thought," sprinkled about.  It's not, finally, a
> satisfying or finished piece of fiction.  It feels as though he needed an
> editor and didn't have one.

Perhaps what he needed was not an editor but some more time and cash. Compared to
GR COL49 indeed seems like a novel of, certainly very "smart and original",
ideas. In other words, one constantly wonders what might be behind not only the
Trystero but also the clues regarding the meaning of the novel instead of just
being taken along for the ride, which is the case in GR. Still, I like this
novel, if perhaps only for nostalgic reasons. For my taste, the "smart and
original ideas" are executed well enough to keep me interested, and the
"Courier's Tragedy" is pure bliss. There are other thoughts, sentences,
paragraphs which I believe are wonderful. Therefore, all in all, I think COL49 is
a good novel. But, yes, it could have been a much better one.

Thomas

P.S. MalignD, I seem to remember that you did not enjoy "Mason and Dixon" either.
May I ask for some "general observations" on P's latest during the next
group-reading?

P.P.S. Please file all of my paraphrases of MalignD's words under "if that is
what you're saying".