SLSL character vs narrator?

[William Zantzinger]

--- Mutualcode at aol.com wrote:

 There is also the "not quite"
> 
> parallelism:
> 
>     
> 
>    Levine, however, was not quite ordinary.
> 
> 
> Which echoes the "almost but not quite me" used to
> 
> describe the TSR narrator. 

No it doesn't. What was not ordinary about Levine has
nothing at all to do with what Pynchon says in the
Intro. Quite the opposite since Pynchon paints himself
as quite ordinary while Levine is not ordianry
specifically  because he likes the wasteland sameness
of fort roach.  


In fact, it may well be
> 
> that Levine is MORE like Pynchon than the TSR
> narrator,
> 
> based on the intro narrator's admissions and lengthy
> 
> descriptions of how the resolution of this inner
> conflict
> 
> played itself out in the evolution of Pynchon's
> generation.

It may well be but you'll have to explain it if you
want us to get what your talking about. Also, why we
want to confuse an author with either his characters
or his narrators? 

> 
> 
> More important, however, is Hollander's quite
> fascinating
> 
> attempt to deal with the material which the intro
> narrator
> 
> completely ignores, or, in my opinion, deliberately
> attempts
> 
> to obfuscate. 

The Intro can't cover everything. What it does not
address is not what it ignores or deliberately
obfuscates. What is an example of obfuscation? 


Clearly, the names are significant;

Why? 


> the fate
> 
> of the "whore book" is significant; 

Why? 

the quotes are
> significant;

Why? 
> 
> the specifics, in other words, are all important.

Details are important. That's literature 101, but what
the significance of each detail is, has to be
explained. Hollander's explainations are warped by his
controlling ideas about the author and his misreading
of the tales. 


> Hollander's
> 
> work is illuminating and thought provoking with
> respect to all
> 
> these issues.

Agreed. 


> 
> 
> There are also hints that the intro narrator is not
> always 
> trustworthy. The issue about Eliot and Hemingway
> exemplifies 
> this. The  overt references to them are made by
> Rizzo, "the 
> perennial undergraduate," and are right in character
> with what 
> we are given to know about him. The intro narrator
> thus 
> slyly confuses Rizzo with the narrator of TSR, and
> chooses to
> ignore the ironic use to which they are put by the
> narrator of TSR. 

No, this is just wrong. 


> 
> Hollander's suspicions of hidden meanings and
> recognition of 
> techniques Pynchon puts to good use in his mature
> works- 
> and I would include the SL intro in that- makes good
> reading.
> H. rejects the self-deprecating: "Most of what I
> dislike about
> my writing is present here in embryo..." and goes on
> to point
> out just the opposite; much of what makes the
> Pynchon of
> the later works so fascinating is present, as well.
> 
> 
> I can forgive Hollander's minor confusion of the TSR
> narrator
> 
> with Levine and praise his valuable scholarship.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com