MDDM Ch. 70 Higher Assembly

[Terrance]

Doug Millison wrote:


> I agree that Wicks isn't the author of the novel's obvious anachronisms,
> that author being Pynchon.

TRP is the author of V. and GR and M&D. Wicks is one of the narrators of
M&D. 

To say that the story is narrated first or third person is to say very
little unless we say something about what effects "person" has on the
narrative. 

The same goes for time or tense--past or present or subjunctive ( we
have various forms of what may be called the subjunctive in this novel,
including the "IF" narratives. The "IF" narratives can be long, taking
up half a chapter or more. Sometimes they are only brief asides or
comments that inform us that the dialogue we are reading is what the
characters would have said IF they had this conversation. 

It's the effects that matter. 

And I don't think that what you guys disagree on, that is,  what ideas,
morals, norms, can be attributed to the author, if any, has much to do
with the effects. 



As a narrator Wicks is not only unreliable he is untrustworthy. He lies,
exaggerates, falls asleep, gets drunk, drinks too much coffee, is very
opinionated, is old and
perhaps even senile or insane, is being "paid" to entertain, and so on. 



He is also unreliable. And this seems to be where you guys disagree.
Wicks, it seems to me, is unreliable (in other words, he does not speak
for or act in accordance with, the norms of the novel or the norms of
the implied author).


I guess Doug could argue that the all the adventures of Mason and Dixon
are  an imaginative projection by/of one very Wicks Cherrycoke based on
doubtful (untrustworthy) and fragmentary information. However, this
still doesn't go to the norms or what Pynchon thinks about any of the
topics you all debate -- is P more critical of the democrats or
republicans or is he neutral? is he an anti-globalist? anti-capitalist?
marxist? Christian? atheist? postmodernist? pacifist? 

So, like the Zone lost we go searching for every scrap of the
rocket/bible/text/word/logos/playboy-japanwhatever/letter, blurb,blah
blah blah.....

or we try to do what Pynchon himself does in his critical reading of
Farina's BDSL, that is, figure out what characteristics of the
protagonist(s) fit the author and what ones don't

or some combination. 

Speaking of Gaddis and Melville, these sorts of biographical/critical
readings won't be prevented by "reclusiveness" or "obscurity." 


Wicks is also unreliable. And this seems to be where you guys disagree.
Wicks, it seems to me, is unreliable (in other words, he does not speak
for or act in accordance with, the norms of the novel or the norms of
the implied author).

It obvious to me that there are other narrators besides Wicks. At least
some of these are also untrustworthy and unreliable. But, some are
ironically unreliable. When we encounter this type of narrator (Ishmael
in the Monkey Rope chapter I posted) it's still very difficult to
determine the norms of the implied author because we have deal with
distance and a bunch of other things.