Holding up a mirror...

[Tim Strzechowski]

> Christ or Satan?
>
> These are but Allegorical figures. But Allegorical thinking is of no use
> to us.
> The novel is a con game. Just like Pale Fire. We will never solve the
> identity puzzle.


Allegorical or not, it doesn't really matter.  The fact is that _The
Confidence Man _(which, I agree, is indeed a con game of sorts) presents
moral ambiguity.  Melville gives us "good" and gives us "bad," but never
offers us bearings on which way we *should* view the text or the character.

And allegorical thinking is perfectly relevant, since the reader here as
elsewhere must associate characters with actions and make judgments based on
them.  The reader of, say, John Bunyun is exposed to characters who behave
in certain ways, and must make judgments of those characters and their
actions and words.

But the point to all this, of course, is the fact that Pynchon establishes a
certain level of moral ambiguity in the character of Zoyd.  Is he a good
father, or a horrible father?  Is he the epitome of counterculture
rebellion, or just another sell-out to the System?  Is his annual window
jump to be viewed as "getting by" with minimal ex-hippie "fuck the Man"
effort, or to be viewed as buying into the economics of  the 1980's
government?  These are questions that require of readers a sense of "right"
and "wrong" within the context of the narrative.  They are questions that
demand of readers a willingness to explore the motives behind the
character's actions and those of the characters with whom he interacts.  The
reader must make judgments of Zoyd based on his actions and words.  Pynchon
gives us lots to work with, of course, but offers a balance in terms of how
we should view Zoyd. We get both sides pretty well established, which is
evidenced by the discussions we've had here for several months regarding
Zoyd and how we should view him.

Moral ambiguity.  Maybe not of the magnitude of Raskolnikov and a
pawnbroker, but moral ambiguity nonetheless.

Respectfully,

Tim