MDMD Outlaws

[John Lundy]

Paul, that's a truly brilliant exposition.  I dips me lid.

On Wednesday, 19 September 2001 06:44, Terrance [SMTP:lycidas2 at earthlink.net] wrote:
> 
> 
> > Paul Nightingale wrote:
> > 
> > Wicks Cherrycoke is an untrustworthy narrator, compelled
> > to tell stories to remain as a guest. As an author,
> > therefore, he is compromised (and then suggests, at
> > various points, that he does not know the entire truth His
> > relationship to the family, moreover, is problematic. The
> > "far-travel'd uncle" becomes the "family outcast". 
> 
> 
> Ethan Edwards in John Ford's The Searchers. His crime of
> > anonymity (as defined, of course, by "wicked men") is that
> > of the dissident; 
> 
> 
> perhaps we should also recall Foucault's
> > comments in "Death of an Author" on the status of
> > different kinds of knowledge. The work of literature now
> > requires a personal signature (what Foucault calls "the
> > sovereignty of the author"); the scientific text is
> > anonymous; in each case this is the opposite of what had
> > been the case before the scientific revolution of the
> > C17th. 
> 
> I just read Foucault's Death of an Author and I must say I
> still can't make any sense 
> of it. I can't read French, but on this subject the man
> writes like a guy who simply can't sit still for  long
> enough to make a point. 
> 
> "On the other hand, on the other foot, on the other hand and
> foot...and we need to ask this question and that question
> and what is this we are almost but not quite... and how do
> we now say this and that when the other hand is the other
> foot.... and oh bother. 
> 
> Sorry. 
> 
> What, then, is the status of Cherrycoke's offense,
> > that is to say, narrative - "Accounts of ... crimes ...
> > observ'd"? What is the relationship between the account,
> > the writing, and that which has been observed? What is the
> > relationship between the account he now gives (when
> > compelled to "keep the children amus'd") of the account he
> > had offered then, previously? He offers himself the role
> > of an outlaw. Pynchon, introducing Stone Junction,
> > distinguishes between outlaws and evil-doers: a
> > similar (counter-cultural) spirit is evidenced in Donald
> > Sutherland's words in the 70s film, Steelyard Blues: "I'm
> > no criminal, I'm an outlaw". Is Cherrycoke as narcissistic
> > as Sutherland's character (whose name, appropriately
> > enough, I've now forgotten)? 
> 
> Certainly, he is playfully disrespectful of the truth: the
> Tower becomes Ludgate,
> > then becomes, dismissively, "whichever, 'twas Gaol". The
> > fact is less important than the impression.
> 
> Not sure. To me, Both "facts" (Tower and Ludgate)  seem as
> important as the impression. 
> This happens in Pynchon novels. Even if later we discover
> from a "reliable" narrator or even Wicks himself, that it
> was niether the Tower not Ludgate, the "facts" remain
> historical and thus tops forever a spin. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  At the
> > beginning of Ch3 he happily confesses that he did not
> > witness (or observe?) the meeting of Mason and Dixon, the
> > birth of their relationship (just as the twins'
> > origins are obscure). 
> 
> Yes, but another point here is that he was not there when
> they met, but was (and here I reverse for emphasis) in an
> unusual way, not in the usual Way. Moreover, it is what
> They  REMEMBERED of the meeting, and only in part because he
> gets tired,   that he records, or so he says in his
> projected book.  
> 
> 
> Pynchon himself tempts the reader
> > with the possibility that his text, which might have been
> > produced in the C18th, is not a late-C20th pastiche. And
> > then, in Ch2, juxtaposes the formality (= authenticity)
> > of letters exchanged by Dixon and Mason, with their own
> > subsequent commentary/revisions. 
> 
> 
> Great stuff! Thanks!