VV(11): Fugue Your Buddy

[jbor]

Yes, many of the critics have complained about Pynchon's thin, or 
"cartoonish" characters, so much so that it's become a commonplace. I think
that while this might be true of some of the characterisations in _V._, and
many of those in _Lot 49_ in particular, there is a psychological roundness
(to borrow Forster's term) to virtually all the main characters in _GR_, one
which is readily apparent. The cast of _M&D_ is similarly fleshed out I
think. As far as Weissmann/Blicero goes, I think his characterisation is
immensely psychological and rounded; we are inside his thoughts on many
occasions and we get to see him through the eyes of four or five other major
characters as well. I think Kathryn Hume's claim that Blicero's
characterisation is a "puzzling failure" on the grounds she provides is a
little odd. Marvy's, for example, can perhaps be described as a "thin" or
cartoon-like portrayal (but even then Doug did manage to find something to
empathise with in that depiction), but Blicero has enormous depth imo, and
sounds some of the major themes of the novel (cf. his readings of Rilke).

Other of Pynchon's outstanding critics, such as Molly Hite and Thomas
Schaub, admit that they are disturbed by the apparent moral ambivalence of
_GR_ in particular. Hite denotes a refusal to "stand aloof from the
characters" which has "implications for the value system" of the novel, and
openly complains that it "does not condemn any of its characters". Schaub
detects a "detachment of values" and assigns "Pynchon's unwillingness to
attach his values to character or plot" as a source of "indirection and
ambiguity" within the text. Similarly, James Wood is annoyed that the novels
"hang without reference" and, it seems implied, moral judgements. While each
of these critics acknowledge that value judgements aren't made within the
text, they discern this as a fault. Whether or not it is a fault is a matter
of personal opinion I guess; I certainly don't believe that the fact that
the text "does not condemn" its characters was simply an oversight on the
author's part.

I agree with you about the way that narrative perspective and focus shift,
and how characters sometimes seem deep and at other times like mere
cardboard cutouts. But not all people in the real world are "deep" in this
respect (and even those who are are perhaps not always so), and I think that
that shallowness and stereotyped bigotry in the portrayal of someone like
Major Marvy is in fact quite apt. I agree with you that part of the pleasure
about participating here is the opportunity to hear other reader's points of
view and sound out your own, and it's much more sensible to remain open to
the possibilities within other interpretations rather than simply denouncing
them as "wrong" or telling people to shut up. Thanks, and

best

----------
>From: "Judy" <blarney at total.net>
>To: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>, "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: VV(11): Fugue Your Buddy
>Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2001, 12:39 PM
>

snip

> I find I am more and more captivated by Pynchon's characters, even though,
> as Terrance points out,  "thinness of character" is a criticism made by
> many. There is such a myriad of characters that I find myself moving between
> viewing the many characters as individuals and/or seeing the characters as
> parts of the divided consciousness of other characters. If they are or not
> really doesn't concern me. What I read Pynchon for is the ample opportunity
> I have of moving between the possibilities. Consequently, reading everyone's
> comments here has also been a real treat.