VLVL2 (4) Off-stage

[Paul Nightingale]

>From jbor:
> 
> > As a character, Prairie doesn't actually 'do' very much: she
> > watches, and listens.
> 
> I disagree. One of the more interesting "current time" scenes in the
novel
> is when Prairie takes over the cooking and kitchen work at the
retreat,
> and
> how she actively uses the computer there to "summon" her mother's
ghost.
> She
> proves to be quite resourceful, something which many of the adults in
the
> novel aren't.
>
Well, I've already commented in passing, and perhaps obliquely, on her
resourcefulness in that chapter, so I don't think we disagree there. My
point is that those current time scenes are far out-weighed by the
flashbacks that make up the rest of the novel; that being the case, I do
think Prairie's function as a character depends on those moments when
she (or the text's references to her) remind us that these are stories
she is accessing. Furthermore, it's precisely her role in the exposure
of the personal/political histories that follow that indicates the
author's optimism even when describing political defeats/setbacks.

And then:
> 
> I don't think RC can be erased so easily from the text, and the
> near-editorial reference to the Vietnam War and "murder as an
instrument
> of
> American politics" (38.18) in this chapter is not "coy" at all.

They are brief and to the point, and perhaps more telling in that
respect.

> As I
> mentioned, the allusions to RC and Blood as Vietnam vets bookend this
> narratorial interpolation.

Precisely. And Pynchon keeps such interpolation brief.

> That you're ("predictably", I guess) not
> interested in considering these details in Pynchon's text as
thematically
> significant is fair enough, but that doesn't mean they're not evident
or
> not
> worth discussing.

I'm interested in discussing what Pynchon wrote, not dreaming up reasons
to argue that "vet" doesn't refer to Vietnam.

> The Millard/Blodwen comic cameo seems very slight by
> comparison, even if it does get half a page more word-space in the
novel.
> 

I disagree with "slight": there's a lot of information there. Moreover,
it must be apparent that the text has said rather more about some
characters than others. I don't think it can be reduced to a word count.

> I think that the way RC and Moonpie's back story is only presented in
> hints
> and glimpses mirrors the actual circumstances of that back story, and
what
> Zoyd knows of their lives. They have actively erased their trail
"since
> the
> war", so their prior lives are a gaping hole in the text. And just
like
> Zoyd, perhaps, we do not know for sure *why* they've erased their
trail,
> only that they have, and it does, or should, or might, give us pause
to
> wonder,

A valid point, if we can always assume that the information provided
corresponds to Zoyd's knowledge about different characters. However, the
key point remains, the narrator offers little detail concerning RC; such
stories will have to emerge as stories told, usually, to Prairie.

In what comes next we're getting into the 'demonisation' of Zoyd in Ch3.
We've already disagreed on that, so I don't see the point in revisiting.

> as it could also have given him pause to wonder (but we also know
> that Zoyd tends to suppress this type of problematic information about
> himself and his compadres, or that he *tries* to suppress it at
least).
> Despite the circumstances of their first meeting and the mystery
> surrounding
> their past, "RC" and "Moonpie" and their kids have become a part of
Zoyd's
> and Prairie's circle of close friends, and a major reason for that is
the
> fact that they and Zoyd are able to do business together, and that
they
> share with him an attitude towards enterprise and remuneration which
isn't
> entirely "legitimate".
>