VLVL2 (1) Missed Communications: Beginnings

[Don Corathers]

I think we're going to have to agree to a friendly disagreement on this one.

"He understood it to be another deep nudge from forces unseen, almost surely
connected with the letter that had come with his latest mental-disability
check..."

(That "another" in there is interesting, but we'll let that pass for now.)

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that Zoyd "understood" the dream
to be "almost surely connected" with the requirement that he do something
"publicly crazy." Yet everything else he understood that day was wrong--the
location for his performance, that the Log Jam was a rustic logger's bar,
that he could change the act if he wanted to, that Hector Zuniga was out of
his life for good, that he was jumping through a real piece of glass, that
there was no risk, if the glass were real., of getting hurt. He was wrong
about all of these things. Why should we assume he was right about the
pigeons?

None of this really matters much except as it reflects on Zoyd as a
character. You think he's a welfare cheat who should be ashamed of his
behavior. I think he's a mensch (and also a schlemihl in the Slothrop mold).
He's been a good father to Prairie, and his willingness to make an ass of
himself once a year is a part of that. And his dog likes him. That's good
enough for me.

D.C.


There are several other points which support the reading of those "forces
unseen" in the opening dream sequence as prompts from Zoyd's own
subconscious or conscience. One is that the later assault by the Feds on
Zoyd's house isn't really "connected" (3) with the letter he received from
the Welfare Dept, whereas his yearly act of deception is. Another is that
the narrator preempts events to come quite deliberately in this chapter --
"He sure would ... " (5) and "Dream on, Zoyd" (10) being two prominent
examples -- so it would be inconsistent in the way narrative agency is
articulated in the rest of the chapter to use Zoyd's dream as premonitory in
the manner suggested. Finally, one of the stock criticisms of Pynchon's
writing is the flatness of his characters. I dispute this: sure there are a
lot of cartoonish minor characters, but I think that there is real
psychological depth to many of the characters in _GR_, and to some of the
main characters in _Vineland_ as well. I get a real sense in the 'Sloth'
article, with his sarcastic comments on writer's block and the way writers
are perceived as slothful particularly, that he was somewhat annoyed by some
of the reviews and critical receptions of _Vineland_, and that he also used
this article as a venue to display the depth of his research. I think one of
the criticisms which is levelled at him most often, and one which is perhaps
quite unfair, is that his characters are cartoons.

best

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: VLVL2 (1) Missed Communications: Beginnings


> >>> To "rat" one's hair is
> >>> such an unusual term,
> >>
> >> actually, this is not an unusual term--it was a very common
colloquialism in
> >> the early 60's and was a synonym for "teasing" or "back-combing", a
> >> hairdressing method used to create those big, poufy bouffant hairdos
that
> >> were then in
> >> vogue.  I doubt that either "teasing" or  "rat" were literary
inventions.
> >> Elaine M.M. Bell, Writer
> >> (860) 523-9225
> >
>
> on 22/7/03 12:09 AM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > Plus "rat" as a noun is a tapered solid object (wood or plastic) around
> > which a woman's hair is arranged to give it a more massive look..
> >
> > Very common in days of yore.
> >
>
> Rattails, often bleached or plaited thin strands of longer hair at the
nape
> of one's nec,k tied together with coloured rubber bands and usually worn
by
> teenage boys, were a high fashion item in the 80s and 90s. The added
> connotation I get from the use of this term is that Zoyd does his hair up
to
> look "ratty", i.e. messy or unkempt, which is in keeping with his pretence
> of craziness. I don't get the impression that he wanted to tease it into a
> neat bouffant.
>
> There are several other points which support the reading of those "forces
> unseen" in the opening dream sequence as prompts from Zoyd's own
> subconscious or conscience. One is that the later assault by the Feds on
> Zoyd's house isn't really "connected" (3) with the letter he received from
> the Welfare Dept, whereas his yearly act of deception is. Another is that
> the narrator preempts events to come quite deliberately in this chapter --
> "He sure would ... " (5) and "Dream on, Zoyd" (10) being two prominent
> examples -- so it would be inconsistent in the way narrative agency is
> articulated in the rest of the chapter to use Zoyd's dream as premonitory
in
> the manner suggested. Finally, one of the stock criticisms of Pynchon's
> writing is the flatness of his characters. I dispute this: sure there are
a
> lot of cartoonish minor characters, but I think that there is real
> psychological depth to many of the characters in _GR_, and to some of the
> main characters in _Vineland_ as well. I get a real sense in the 'Sloth'
> article, with his sarcastic comments on writer's block and the way writers
> are perceived as slothful particularly, that he was somewhat annoyed by
some
> of the reviews and critical receptions of _Vineland_, and that he also
used
> this article as a venue to display the depth of his research. I think one
of
> the criticisms which is levelled at him most often, and one which is
perhaps
> quite unfair, is that his characters are cartoons.
>
> best
>