VLVL2 (1) Robberds essay

[Michael Joseph]

Much thanks to Paul N. for his refocussing of Mark Robberds' essay and his
broad agreement with my critique. I'd like to offer in lieue of a personal
response a reference to what appears to be a paper by Brandon Story, which
is also critical of Robberds for slighting the "pleasures" of reading
Vineland in the effort to turn it into a New Historicist critique.

http://www.etsu.edu/writing/f99/bstory.htm. What follows is a sample:

"Mark Robberds 1995 Article "The New Historicist Creepers of Vineland" is
an insightful look into how Thomas Pynchons 1990 novel fits the new
historicist criteria of Michel Foucault, Stephen Greenblatt, and other new
historicists. He convincingly argues for the "vinelike" characteristics of
the novel, and shows how it is "genealogical in structure and
archeological in content" (Robberds 238). What Robberds means is that
Vineland is a complex narrative with more characters than a three-part
miniseries. The book, which opens in 1984, is set as much in the sixties
as in the eighties. After meeting each character, we are treated to their
history and interaction with other characters over the previous fifteen to
fifty years, in some cases tracing back to their parents and grandparents.
All this personal and cultural history fits into Robberds definition of
Foucaults new historicism nicely, but Robberds seems so eager to fit
Vineland into this box that he misses one of the true pleasures of reading
Pynchon."

[...]

"Robbeson [sic!] also fails to note that the reader can discriminate
between literal reality and the televisual reality of Vineland. When we
read that Zoyds bandmate "Van Meter flashed Mr. Spocks hand salute"
(Pynchon 11) we can imagine that happening as much as we can imagine
someone recalling a line from a favorite film or television show. However,
when we read that a TV movie about the 1983-1984 NBA Finals stars Paul
McCartney as Kevin McHale, Sean Penn as Larry Bird, Michael Douglas as Pat
Riley and Jack Nicholson as himself (Pynchon 378), we know that its a
parody. The idea works, though, because its nonsensical to think of Beatle
Paul McCartney playing 6'8" basketball star Kevin McHale, but it isnt
absurd to think of Michael Douglas playing Pat Riley. What Pynchon is
commenting on is the state of a culture in which a film like that would be
made if enough people tuned into see it. He is also ribbing such former
counter-culture figures as Paul McCartney of the Beatles, Jack Nicholson
of Easy Rider, and Michael Douglas, producer of the film version of Ken
Keseys One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, for going so mainstream." (Brandon
Story)."


On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Paul Nightingale wrote:

> 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'.
>
>
>