VLVL The deal

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 07:19, Otto wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: VLVL The deal
> 
> 
> > >>>>> "Before he was to be cut loose, Zoyd had had to stand between
> > >>>>> two marshals (*.*) unobserved in the afternoon shade (...)."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Well, if you leave out the part about one of them being "his
> assailant,
> > >>>> Ron, unobserved in the afternoon shade", sure thing I guess.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course it's absolutely sure if you leave out "his assailant, Ron".
> > >>
> > >> And, of course, when you read the text as written by Pynchon the words
> > > "his
> > >> assailant, Ron, unobserved in the afternoon shade" aren't left out at
> all.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but the question was to which person(s) this "unobserved" is
> related
> > > to.
> >
> > Syntactically, it directly relates to Ron, and Ron alone. That's
> > incontrovertible.
> 
> I'm sorry but it isn't incontrovertible at all. It's just your single
> opinion. Surely your English is better than mine, but Joseph Tracy wrote
> about this point:
> 
> "Ridiculous; there's nothing wrong with Pynchons compact sentences. All 3
> are in the shade, unobserved, Zoyd held in humiliation to watch Brock's
> triumphal demonstration of ownership."
> 
> And he's a native speaker. I fully agree to his view.
> 
> > Whether Pynchon intended it to refer to Zoyd and the other
> > marshal as well is not possible to say, but if he did then there are a
> > number of ways he could have avoided ambiguity to convey that particular
> > meaning. That he hasn't done so inclines me to give him the benefit of the
> > doubt and accept that he did in fact write what he meant to write.
> >
> 
> I am convinced too that he wrote what he intended to write, that Zoyd is
> standing unobserved in the shade inbetween two officers who are logically in
> the shade too. The text doesn't say that Frenesi sees Zoyd.
> 
> >
> > I think the paragraph reads perfectly well as it's actually written,
> without
> > deleting words and phrases to make it mean something different:
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > Ron standing
> > in the shade, unobserved by everyone else, a sinister reminder to Zoyd to
> > behave.
> >
> > best
> 
> But that's wrong -- you are rewriting the text here. Pynchon never wrote:
> 
> > Ron standing
> > in the shade, unobserved by everyone else, a sinister reminder to Zoyd to
> > behave.
> >
> 
> But since the VLVL seems to have stopped we could leave it at this point
> 
> Otto
> 

Syntax isn't something Pynchon is very fussy about (he often writes more
for impressionistic effect than for precise logical meaning).

My high school English teacher would have said the sentence was
ambiguous and needed to be rewritten to make clear whether the
"unobserved" phrase refers to both guards or only to Ron. Or possibly
even to Zoyd as well.


The interesting thing however is to observe that Pynchon is deliberately
(IMHO) making the scene in its totality difficult to absorb. The reader
is left (as is often the case with P) not being able to form a stable
image of what is going on. We know roughly but not very precisely. Does
or doesn't Frenesi know that Zoyd is there watching her suffering under
Brock's control? It would seem that a part of Z's humiliation might be
in having his wife see him there helpless and unable to rescue her or
possibly unwilling to even try. We would like to know if this is part of
Brock's sadistic point. But we don't know. Not for sure.

Is the ambiguity here and elsewhere a part of the author's artistic end?
If so his sometimes questionable grammar can be brought into service of
that end. I remember the plastic fiction piece by Gore Vidal in which V
cites examples of P's incorrect grammar. Vidal's bigger point was that
Pynchon's writing generates more heat that light. (which seems to me a
little bit extreme but not without some truth)

Correct me if I'm wrong. I only reread the paragraph, not the entire
chapter.