MDMD: Outlaws revisited

[Terrance]

Paul Nightingale wrote:
> 
> I don't think I ever meant that Cherrycoke speaks 'for' Pynchon (= as a
> mouthpiece). What I find especially interesting are the layers of ambiguity
> that prevent any such simplistic interpretation. 

Yes. There are so many layers just in the first chapter. Are there too
many? 
Is that the point? I guess so, that impatience with convention,
conformity, again? 
Could we say, Departures? Latitudes? 

There are many examples (I
> quoted some) to show that Pynchon has prioritised the question of authority
> (who is allowed to speak and when) at the beginning of this novel:
> Cherrycoke's storytelling, certainly, but also the 'dialogue' in Ch2 between
> letters and after-the-event commentary. Personally, I think this is the most
> interesting part of the first couple of chapters. It is also why I chose to
> dwell on the outlaw-metaphor. An outlaw is anyone or thing that exists
> outside the law; anyone or thing that challenges conformity and the
> authority of those lawgivers who would establish what will count as
> conformity. Conformity, by definition, cannot tolerate dissent; yet requires
> dissent to define itself. The opening of the novel is a narrative of
> dissent. So Cherrycoke might be an outlaw, if his account of his past can be
> believed. However, we are hindered in our attempts to celebrate him as a
> popular hero - if this is what we are inclined to do - because we must
> accept that his account might not be entirely dependable. The content ("This
> is what I did") is challenged by the context (the purpose here of
> storytelling, bums on seats, a favourable result) and also the form (the
> juxtaposition of conflicting accounts).