TPPM Watts: (4) Case closed

[Paul Nightingale]

According to Seed, the essay "begins with a straightforward factual
account" (152). However, I think it worthwhile discussing how the text
positions the reader. More precisely, how it juxtaposes different
imaginary readers. After all, there is nothing "straightforward" about
any "factual account", given that facts have to be selected and turned
into narrative.

"... after a chase that began in Watts and ended some 50 blocks farther
north ..."

The essay opens with an implicit question: why? No reason is given for
the chase, although the identification of the main players as white cops
and black passengers might go some way to explaining matters in the mind
of the reader. One imagines the cops, at the inquest, did explain why
they went in pursuit, why they were suspicious; yet none of this is
deemed relevant by the text.

Should we therefore conclude that the text has unfairly silenced the
cops, denied them the right to explain events from their point of view?

Well, I suppose this option is always available.

"... to no one's surprise ..."

Quoting the phrase above Seed says Pynchon is locating his point of view
among the blacks. More accurately, as I have said above, the text
juxtaposes different imaginary readers, corresponding to information
present and absent.

This opening passage, in 'setting the scene', positions the reader as
part of the audience for the inquest, either there in the court in
person or following from a distance (eg reading the NY Times).
Apparently, the shooting of Deadwyler "resembles the arrest of Marquette
Frye for drunken driving which triggered off the 1965 riots" (Seed,
152). However, if this is the case, the observer in Watts and the
observer in New York will recall the earlier event differently.

Readers wanting to know why Deadwyler didn't stop straightaway are told
that Mrs Deadwyler is about to give birth, which might explain why
Deadwyler was speeding, for example, if that in fact was the reason
given for the chase. Possibly Deadwyler was speeding, and possibly the
cops did wish to argue that this looked like drunken driving. If this
indeed was the case, then "a straightforward factual account" of the
inquest, in the interests of providing motivation and rounded
characters, would likely include such details: his failure to stop would
allow the cops to say, in their own defence, that he was acting
suspiciously.

Nonetheless, information explaining events from the cops' point of view,
is absent. Instead, we're told the young cop has a record (he "once had
a complaint brought against him ..." etc).

This case, therefore, only "resembles the arrest of Marquette Frye" if
the cops wished to argue that Deadwyler had been speeding and they
chased and stopped him for drunken driving. The distant observer is
denied this information: from the point of view of the NY Times, the
story would be newsworthy, in part, precisely because repetition raised
the possibility that events about to unfold were also going to be
repetitive (which of course is what the text goes on to speculate
about).

On the contrary, one might argue the text gives priority to the
imaginary reader in Watts, the inquest observer who ignores evidence in
mitigation of the cops' actions.