VLVL Prairie

[Paul Nightingale]

I've always felt that Pynchon's writing was an ongoing dialogue with
traditional realism. I'm inclined to add that the continuing critical
hegemony of such realism is unfortunate, given the refusal of readers,
whatever guise they adopt, to take on board the post-realist lessons of
Pynchon's work (and that of others, of course).

The reference to cartoonish characters is interesting, though. I would agree
that Pynchon's characters are indeed cartoonish, if that means they're
allowed a flexibility, a release from the realist strait-jacket (which is my
reading of Michael's "plasticity").

I wish I could say nothing surprises me anymore in the topsy-turvy world of
P-land; however, I'm continually amazed by jbor's stubborn refusal to accept
that his realist methodology just doesn't fit. A little bit of inconsistency
has, however, crept in. Having insisted that what matters is what's in the
text, and then steadfastly refused to follow his own advice by reading
what's written and how it's written, he now proposes the view that the text
can't be trusted (ie "[taken] ... seriously"). Because Pynchon has refused
to write the book he should've written? Well, if the P-Man does lurk here, I
hope he now hangs his head in shame and stares at his feet "like an amateur
tap dancer".

And having just re-read Ch8 in the light of the discussion of Ch7, I keenly
anticipate the next episode of our reading.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Joseph
> Sent: 19 October 2003 20:34
> To: jbor
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: VLVL Prairie
> 
> 
> Jb, I understand that reviewers were quick to disparage his characters as
> "cartoonish" when comparing Pynchon to so-called realist novelists, such
> as Bellow, Updike, the Roths, JC Oates. Pynchon's characters, which
> pointed to themselves as signs within a fictional work, and played with
> the plasticity of the medium beyond the constraints of rigid traditional
> mimesis, seemed deficient by readers who flat out misunderstood or else,
> understanding, fought a rear guard action against him.
> 
> Twenty or more years later, in what sense is it now meaningful to
> continue to mischaracterize Pynchon's characters? Instead of
> throwing him into a set of conventions he attacked, why not focus on him
> according to his own terms, or attempt to understand what those terms are?
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> > It's difficult to fathom the situation or take it all seriously because
> many
> > of the characters are often cartoonish (Prairie is perhaps the
> exception),
> > best
> >
> 
>