GRGR (1): Wayward Thoughts and Forshadowings (pp. 3 - 7)

[Paul Nightingale]

1. I don't think I've suggested that I want to discuss the way the text
works in isolation from what it's about; on the contrary, I've tried to
argue that meaning/content is inseparable from context/form, to use
conventional terms (although this is more than the old form/content
debate). For that reason I suggested that the use of dream discourse as
an opening, as a prelude to the formal introduction of a major character
in a recognisable setting, was as important as, if not more important
than, the 'mere fact' that this is a dream at all. That is, what
connotations does dreaming have? And what does this add to our
understanding of the way we experience the opening to the novel? For
this reason I posed the question why: to say it's a dream, and no more,
is to pose one kind of relationship between first (3-4) and second (4-7)
sequences. Furthermore, this relationship is hierarchical, the meaning
of the first dependent on enlightenment provided by the other. And I can
only repeat: nowhere does the text inform us that this is a dream. We
infer as much because of the writing. Worth more than a passing thought.

2. I'm not quite sure where that functionalist gibe comes from; any
understanding of discursive formations must recognise that conflict
between this and that discursive arrangement is both inevitable and
irreconcilable. Intertextuality 101.

3. "I don't know anyone who expects to read a text and have everything
laid out for them on the first page." And I said this where, exactly?
What I have said is that any reader starts by hoping/expecting to gain
access to the text, which is what I meant by "work out straightaway
what's going on". Understanding is cumulative, which is why we bother
reading beyond page one. The second passage offers a recognisable
character in a recognisable setting; and as I noted earlier, this
sequence is built on a series of actions/activities, Pirate doing this
and that. (It might be interesting later to get on to the way P then
undermines the conventions - and this is what he's doing, playing with
different narrative conventions - adopted here.) To elaborate a little:
the first chapter (3-7) offers contrasting ways of opening a narrative,
one where the meaning is elusive due to the heightened subjectivity of
dream discourse, the other where meaning is provided by character
description. What the reader might get, by way of understanding, is
awareness that GR will feature different ways of telling a story. Yes,
it is a postmodernist novel, and P's take (in my view, in everything he
has written) is to ask how we know what we know.

4. First and second sentences, again. My reading is based on context.
Nowhere does the text tell us what the sound is. I've not suggesting it
isn't important; I am suggesting that what's important is that something
so important is left open to alternative readings. Some have said it's
the rocket itself; you say "most probably the air raid siren" and I
don't deny the plausibility of it being the sound that wakens Pirate,
although one should bear in mind that plausibility is itself a narrative
convention (one that P introduces in the second sequence). Furthermore,
it's plausible because "everyone has had a similar ... experience". This
recourse to real life to support a reading is what I have termed
realism, the assumption of an unproblematic relationship between
signifier and signified. The second sentence challenges that view.