VLVL2 (4) Off-stage

[jbor]

>> 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,

on 4/9/03 9:53 AM, Paul Nightingale wrote:

> A valid point, if we can always assume that the information provided
> corresponds to Zoyd's knowledge about different characters.

Thanks for your response. I think there are precedents all throughout these
early chapters, where narrative agency and Zoyd's pov blend into one
another. It's not "always" the case, but I don't think it's necessary that
it *is* always the case to remain a valid point in regard to this scene. It
is Zoyd who knows "RC" and "Moonpie", and it's through Zoyd that we get to
know them. The "who" and "how" and "why" of the couple are all represented
as aspects of Zoyd's relationship with them; it doesn't seem too much of a
stretch to suggest that the "what" is likewise.

I think it will be interesting to keep an eye on the ratio of "present time"
stuff to flashbacks, and the articulation of these. I think there's quite a
bit of jumping back to the present -- particularly with the DL and Takeshi
subplot -- and that there are fairly constant reminders that these are
flashbacks which have been generated by acts of retrospection which are
occurring in the "present time" of the narrative.

> 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.

I don't see it as being a "'demonisation'" of Zoyd, I just don't think
there's anywhere near total narratorial (let alone authorial) alignment with
his pov, attitudes, behaviours etc in the novel. Though focal, there's
consistently an ironic distance between the narrative agency and Zoyd, and
his flaws, blind spots and misgivings are on continuous diplay. Despite this
I think that he is presented sympathetically, and that a significant portion
of the narrative concerns itself with him as a protagonist coming to terms,
only a little perhaps, but enough, with "history" -- "history" both personal
and societal -- and with the impossibility of keeping those two categories
separate, which I think is what is at the root of his dilemma in the novel.
And I also wanted to note the redeeming characteristics in the novel's
depiction of Hector, not least of which is the camaraderie Zoyd feels, and
occasionally shows, towards him.

I think Pynchon's disillusionment with the "hippie resurgence" is pretty
explicit in the _Slow Learner_ 'Intro' (SL 9.18-26), and contestation of the
fact that those feelings have been amplified in _Vineland_ into something
which approaches a full-on critique is what seems to me to be a waste of
time, if indeed "predictable".

In terms of the representations of RC and the Marquis, I think that some
time has been spent on crafting the Phantom Creek episode (it begins the
chapter, and the placename is evocative) and the flashbacks it contains, in
insinuating a number of things about "RC" and "Moonpie", and in describing
Zoyd's dealings with them. There seems to me to be much more which is of
thematic substance -- "serious" content -- here, and through it and from it
we get deeper insights into Zoyd's character and history also. By contrast,
the Millard-Blodwen scene seems like a setpiece farce, light comic relief.

best