VLVL2 (1) Robberds essay

[Paul Nightingale]

Broad agreement with Michael J's commentary on Robberds, so just a few
points here.

>From Robberds: "The text breaks down any distinction between a literal
social reality and a figurative televisual one, thereby eliminating the
possibility of a parodic structure."

Hence parody, as opposed to pastiche, depends on a distinction, or gap,
between social reality/world and fiction/text.

"The text neither applauds nor parodies the televisual but presents it
instead as 'cultural artefact'".

Which seems to foreshadow Robberds' subsequent reference to the way
critics, typically, address "televisual culture" and his assertion that
Pynchon is non-committal ("in the end comes down on the side of none").

If Robberds means that Pynchon presents "televisual culture" as an
academic debate, or series of debates, without demanding that his
characters be mouthpieces for or against this or that point of view,
then I agree. However, that isn't the same as being non-committal.
Hence, what we need to consider are the differences between parody and
pastiche (and Robberds has apparently borrowed his working definition
from Jameson), and the function that either might have in the text at
any given time. Discursively speaking, there is no reason to suppose, or
demand, that the text remain 'loyal' to one at the expense of the other:
indeed, upon reading Jameson we might infer that the shifting
relationship between parody and pastiche is itself part of the cultural
history that VL describes (or tracks). Consequently, we need to discuss
the academic debates that construct televisual culture rather than
ignoring them on the grounds that Pynchon "in the end comes down on the
side of none" ... since he does "come down on the side of" debate
itself.

Furthermore, Robberds doesn't help his own case when he goes on to
confuse 'the TV culture of VL' with 'the way TV destroyed the
counterculture': this is anything but 'even-handed', and Robberds has
added a voice-of-God commentary of his own, one that doesn't fit with,
or follow from, his earlier reference to "Foucaultian structures" (given
that Foucault would insist there is nothing outside the text). A
Foucaultian analysis would address the way knowledge is shaped,
discursively, by the conflict between, eg, 'TV brainwashes the viewer'
and 'TV-as-popular culture is a contested site upon which hegemonic
control is never complete'.