unreliable? in Vineland

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
Cc: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: unreliable? in Vineland
>
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > I admit that the distinction between the omniscient and the pov-narrator
> > isn't easy to tell.
>
> Not sure what you're saying  here.
>

Well, my introduction to the study of English literature distinguishes
between the auctorial (and this includes the omniscient), the "I"- and the
pov-narrator (like Lodge taking James as example).

>
> >
> > Do we have an agent-narrator here who is commenting and reliable, but
may
> > not be seen as the author's voice?
>
>
> I would say that we have a narrator who is commenting, privileged,
> provides inside views ( and these are very deep and both moral and
> psychological) but is unreliable because he does not speaks for or in
> accordance with the norms of the work (which is to say the implied
> author's norms).
>

Which are the implied author's norms? Why is the narrator unreliable in our
case here?

>
> >
> > Presenting another one's dreams seems very privileged to me. Isn't it
very
> > god-like (since I don't believe in ESP) peeping into someone's (Zoyd or
> > Pirate Prentice) dreams?
>
> Pirate is another case. But yes,  it's privilege, it's inside view, but
> not god-like or omniscient.
>

I cannot imagine another than a god-like perspective that would allow this.

Otto