is sloth lost? (was: "underlying causative process")

[Ivan Z. Cestero]

--- lorentzen-nicklaus wrote:
> . . .  Slothrop is too much part of the book, so he is lost
> as we close the cover on the last page. 


               sloth is too much part of our lives, so he is saved every moment 
               we feel for him. 
--- end of quote ---

touché!

that was a nice little quip, kai. you ddin't really address what Eric was getting at but, not only did you quip well, but raised an interesting question:
like most GR fans i too have a special place in my heart for slothrop: his cheerful nature in the face of such an unthinkable conspiracy/war/etc, his obliviousness and naivete, his status as powerless victim, the sad inevitabilty of his disappearance. 
the problem is: as far as great, well rounded characters go, slothrop for me is too farcical, one sided, impossible to believe, to admire him as much as i WANT to. does that make sense? i.e. the whole complaint that pycnhon's characters in general (those whom i've read, but also what i've heard from others re/M&D and vineland) seem to be not quite there, too farcical--half human, half cartoonish vehicles for politcal/social message--to really feel for them. check oedipa.  

i've found for my taste characters w/whom i better idenity w/in works of Delillo (since we been talking re/him) and dfwallace especially. the latter seems to be able to maintain the farcical (sorry for overusing this owrd)/jokish aspects of his charachters yet still make them seem believable, like we could meet them and chat. which is for me one of his most amazing abilities as awriter. 

is this problem of  IDing just a common result of pynchon's type of fiction--how everything seems just a few clicks from "real" but is qutie based on reality?  
or is this some personal issue i have? 

ok, back to real world/work

i