m&m's in v

[Paul Nightingale]

Pynchon c.1959 wasn't the writer he became c.1973 or c.1997? Joseph
separates qualities that endure in later work from MMIV's "own merit".
This is more thoughtful than the intolerant dismissal of MMIV offered
elsewhere; yet still begs the question as to how we isolate MMIV's "own
merit" and put it, so to speak, into solitary confinement to await
sentencing.

We're interested in this story because Pynchon wrote it (although for
some this is apparently an excellent reason to dismiss it without
bothering to read it). And yes, we can attempt to track Pynchon's
development as a writer (eg extrapolating from MMIV to GR--or as I did
earlier to VL's opening). We might also regard the story in its own
right as an exercise in narrative.

Siegel is juxtaposed to three other (male) characters: Lupescu
(doppelganger), Grossmann (roommate) and Irving Loon (outsider) all
function as alternates. He is also juxtaposed to three female
characters: Rachel and the two confessees, Lucy and Debbie, with all of
whom he is given a relationship.

Lupescu is present in the story's 'here-&-now' whereas Grossmann is
conjured up by Siegel's memories; Lupescu is therefore related to Siegel
in space, Grossmann in time. Irving Loon is 'here' as opposed to 'there'
(ie in Washington, not Ontario); as well as 'present' as opposed to
'absent', which means the narrative offers him as an alternative to
Lupescu also (and Siegel first sees Irving in relation to the pig
foetus). Irving also challenges the conventional separation of narrative
time and narrative space, given that 'here-not-there' exposes conflict
between linear and cyclical times.

Like Grossmann, Rachel belongs to 'the past'; like Lupescu, she is
absent from the party (the absence of each causing Siegel some anxiety).
Lucy substitutes for Rachel when offering to sleep with Siegel; Debbie
then substitutes for Lucy-as-confessee. The narrative space occupied by
females, therefore, differs from that occupied by males. One reading of
this is to say that Siegel (as protagonist) is himself male and
therefore (as the story's organising force) has a different relationship
to other (male and female) characters.

However, if we consider Siegel as protagonist, we might notice that he
is quite inactive--as a term, preferable to passive for two reasons:

1. Siegel's narrative function is to stand opposite the actions of
others--Rachel abandons him; ditto Lupescu, who leaves him in charge;
while Lucy and Debbie insist that he listen to them, etc. Moreover, his
departure at the end allows him to avoid confronting Irving Loon (a form
of activity). As nominal protagonist, therefore, Siegel is himself
curiously absent (ie he doesn't do very much to move the narrative
forward).

2. Siegel's narrative function is to invoke storytelling that
effectively sidetracks, or marginalises, any account that might
otherwise be given of the party. His own retrospective accounts (of his
time in Europe, of Grossmann) are juxtaposed to Rachel's explanation of
her no-show and then the confessions by Lucy and Debbie--all of which
confirm that the action is elsewhere (making Siegel's timely departure
at the end far from an arbitrary gesture). Hence the story is full of
storytelling but very little action (if by 'action' we mean 'plot' and
'what happens').

Robert Holton's essay in Reading from the Margins concludes by judging
the early stories (including MMIV) "fascinating both as records of
Pynchon's evolving cultural awareness and as documents of their time,
reflecting the controversy that surrounded questions of conformism and
alienation just before new analyses of race and gender radically revised
the very nature of resistance ..." ("'Closed Circuit': The White Male
Predicament in Pynchon's Early Stories"). I would suggest that P's
treatment of his white male protagonist in MMIV indicates an awareness
that the "new analyses" will require different ways of telling.