MDMD: Outlaws revisited

[John Lundy]

Paul,

I have a difficulty with this kind of literary analysis that extends way 
beyond Pynchon.  When readers see the text as open to a wide variety of 
interpretations it is more likely that they're all wrong than that we're 
witnessing authorial genius on a scale way beyond normal human 
comprehension.  Nobody admires the great TRP more than I (that's probably 
too big a statement to justify on this List) but I would have thought the 
ambiguity and confusion that is evident in regard to Cherrycoke's narrative 
"authority" is screaming to us that the novelist didn't intend his motives 
to be deciphered by quite so labyrinthine a chase.  (Especially from the 
master of chase scenes.)

My suspicion is that the answer is far more prosaic and disappointing than 
some us would like to believe, but I'll keep that up the sleeve for later 
in our discussion.  As usual Paul, you nail your colours to the mast and 
whether you're right or wrong I can't help but be impressed by the depth of 
your scholarship.

John

On Thursday, 20 September 2001 15:10, Terrance 
[SMTP:lycidas2 at earthlink.net] wrote:
>
>
> 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).