Protagonists and points of view

[jbor]

----------
>From: CyrusGeo at netscape.net
>

> I agree on Pynchon not prescribing any kind of moral hierarchy. Meanwhile...
>
> jbor:
>>  There's his little dummy spit to Jess (37-38), where he adopts a superior
>>  tone with her ("We call them 'staff"), has a dig at Pointsman for being a
>>  "Royal Fellow", and then calls Beaver "Nutria" just to bait her. Later he
>>  refers to his colleagues as "raving lunatics" because of their belief in the
>>  supernatural (58.7), and he's again "more cranky than usual today" when he
>>  ridicules both "analysis" and "cause-and-effect" while walking with
>>  Pointsman on the beach. (88-89)  His jealousy and self-consciousness are
>>  somewhat cloying. If nothing else he's somewhat immature.
>
> Well, Roger is young, and he's in love. So, of course he's immature, but
> he's also passionate. In what you say above, I can honestly find nothing
> negative about him. Most people with passionate convictions would talk like
> that. Is there a chance you are being somewhat "politically correct" here?
> (No offence meant whatsoever.)

No, none taken. I'm not saying that Roger is a villain, not by any stretch;
only that all of the characterisations are complex, and things like "good"
and "evil" are pretty damn irrelevant to the way that characters and events
have been drawn in this novel. (And as a reader you do have your favourites:
I think virtually all of the characterisations are wonderful, but I
particularly "like" Jess, Geza, der Springer, Frau Gnahb & Gottfried). And I
think humanity is generally affirmed throughout the text, and in fact it's
often perhaps the revealed human foibles of characters which make them most
real, and most likeable. It interested me just in looking up those episodes
in the text of _GR_ to find references to Roger's sour temper: "They're both
of them peevish tonight ... " (37); "I knew you'd be angry" says Jess, "I'm
not angry" Rog retorts angrily (57); and then him being "more cranky than
usual today" on the beach with Ned P. (88) His petulance and impulsiveness
recur often enough to be considered as character traits I think. And he is
30-31 after all, so not so young. And not nearly as young as Jessica, who
can't remember what it was like before the war (58-59), and suddenly has a
premonition of what she will be like at 30 (59.11) where she seems to be
imagining Roger as her *child*.
>
> About the incident with the secretary: I believe this whole episode is
> brilliant comedy, probably in the spirit of the great comic actors of the
> '30s and 40's. You can often find cruelty there, and I don't think it was
> ever considered offensive. In any case, your views are fully respected.

It is funny but there is a touch of malevolence as well, and not just
because of "the Corner" of Pointy's office which spooks Geza, (as a
contrast, I'm not sure that there was ever actual blood spilt in the
Chaplin, Keaton, Keystone Cops, Marx Bros, Stooges, or Laurel & Hardy stuff,
as there is in this episode). Even so, it also contributes to the
characterisation of Roger, and moves the plot along

> Thank you for your time
> Cyrus

best to you too