VLVL Prairie and DL

[Paul Nightingale]

>From jbor:
 
> > It's clearly significant that, from the list, jbor has picked out one
> > meaning that makes the chapter fit his limited (and limiting)
> > interpretation.
> 
> Actually, what DL does do *is* stall -- right there in the text, direct
> speech and Prairie's response (101.1-7) -- which is why the word in its
> normal usage is apt. There's nothing at all in the text to support the
> interpretation of "temporize" as meaning DL wants "to get her timing
> right".

Whether you like it or not, the term that Pynchon uses is 'temporize'. This
might mean procrastinate/delay/stall. And it might mean something else.
You're being dogmatic and insisting you know what it means; I'm simply
pointing out that the word that actually appears on the page allows a degree
of ambiguity. In terms of the way the narrative proceeds, this ambiguity is
worth acknowledging and thinking about. But not if you've already made up
your mind on what you want the chapter to mean.

In the passage at the top of 101, DL's speech includes the phrases "playin'
make-believe", "lying, turning each other in" etc. Are you really trying to
suggest that this is DL avoiding the issue? Is this the speech of someone
stalling for time while racking her brains to think of a way to change the
subject?
> 
> >> A lot is left unsaid between the two of them, but eventually both
> >> understand
> >> where things stand I think.
> >
> > Yes. Communication is achieved, messages are sent and received.
> Knowledge is
> > processed. Which undermines the view that DL is being evasive. If so,
> her
> > stalling tactics are remarkably unsuccessful.
> 
> Q. Does DL actually tell Prairie the truth about why Frenesi left?
> 
> A. No.
> 
> And they both know it.
> 
So when Prairie decides to go with DL she knows that her own fears have been
confirmed, even if she doesn't know the details, chapter-&-verse. Prairie
now knows that she doesn't know something; which again indicates that DL has
failed to be evasive. She really is pretty inept here.

> > What I read is: "... DL had to stare down at her feet like an amateur
> tap
> > dancer".
> 
> She's embarrassed by Prairie's heartfelt plea, and shamefaced because she
> has let her down.

So now she's "let her down". Well, I guess it never rains but it pours.
Every time you rewrite it, there's another twist. Nothing in the text to
suggest that Dl has let down Prairie, given that the amulet, which has led
her to DL, will now lead her on further.

> I think that's a reasonable enough explanation in the
> context of what's gone on in the encounter, and it's consistent with the
> timing and nuance of DL's reaction as it is described in the text.
> 
Q. Is that before or after you've rewritten the text?

A. No.

To be continued in a separate post.