VLVL characters (was Re: Which side is he on?

[jbor]

>> I don't agree that Pynchon's characters can be reduced to such a
>> simplistic
>> schema. Using the text we're supposedly reading as a lithmus, Frenesi,
>> for
>> instance, betrays her friends and causes death and despair so that she
>> can
>> enhance her own sexual enjoyment. Conversely, Hector is shown to be
>> constantly looking out for Zoyd's interests, as when he has called Sasha
>> to
>> come and look after Prairie when Zoyd is about to be arrested (295). I'm
>> not
>> sure whether she or he is meant to be "bad" or "good" according to the
>> model
>> you've invented, but I do find Hector likable for the most part, and I
>> find
>> some of Frenesi's actions pretty reprehensible.
> 
> I think Pynchon presents Frenesi in a completely reprehensible manner.
> There is nothing good about her.  Her involvement in the movement before
> she flipped is presented fairly clearly as self-indulgence.

I don't think she's any more self-indulgent than the others. In fact, I'd
argue that she was more politically committed than the Pisks or DL.

> Hector on
> the other hand is portrayed as being insane. In Pynchon bad characters
> who happen to be insane often perform acts of kindness.  This does not
> mitigate the harm they do to other people.

I disagree with this also. Hector in 1984 has been labelled insane by an arm
of the Establishment just as Zoyd has been since the early '70s, but the
root of Hector's alleged "insanity" is nothing more than his addiction to
the Tube. In real terms I'd say this makes him no more insane than Zoyd, or
a lot of other characters in the novel. Certainly, back when he rings Sasha
to come and look after the baby for Zoyd (295), which is the example from
the text I provided, he's not "insane".

> I agree with you that Prarie is pivotal and Pynchon doesn't "thow his lot
> in 100% with any character,"  but I insist that he writes in such a way
> as to make certain charcters much more likeable than others

I actually think he does something almost the opposite of this, where
conventional notions of "good" and "bad" are made problematic, and that as
readers we're forced to confront our own belief systems and received
prejudices. Liking or not liking a character, or a person you meet in real
life, is such a subjective thing anyway, I don't see how you can extrapolate
from a personal prejudice (say, disliking cops and liking hippies) what
Pynchon's literary intentions are, let alone "insist" on it. I find Zoyd
"likable" but he often behaves badly, as in that Honolulu episode (56-61).

> and this
> reveals a moral focus that is clearly left leaning if we may broadly
> interpret "left" as being sympathetic to the poor and powerless.

I don't find these generalisations to have much substance -- morality and
political affiliation aren't synonymous for a start -- and I don't agree
with the interpretations of his characterisations or of his purpose as a
writer that you've provided thus far to support your stance. I'm not sure
that it's always the case that those who are perceived, or who perceive
themselves, as "left" are "sympathetic", as with "the failure of college
kids and blue collar workers to get together politically" due to the
"invisible class force fields" between them, which he addresses in the _SL_
'Intro' (7), and which he exemplifies in the novel. Additionally, being
"sympathetic" mightn't always result in effective change, or it might be
counter-productive, or, indeed, it might just be a type of tokenism or
condescension.

I realise that the '60s counterculture is a sacred cow for many, but it's
not as if Pynchon hasn't taken on sacred cows before, and I've yet to see
any evidence to say that he endorses, let alone that he participated in, the
US youth movement of the late '60s, or, in fact, to say that he has ever
thrown his weight behind any specific political faction whatsoever.

best