ATD: NO SPOILERS NO PAGE # Re: Rocketmen and Wastelands

[Tore Rye Andersen]

Perhaps the whole metaphor of flat vs. well-rounded characters is a bit 
unfortunate to begin with. It smacks of 19th century literature and debates 
about low vs. high culture. Comparing Pynchon's characters favourably with 
Don DeLillo's, Tony Tanner once said: "It is not a question of anything so 
old-fashioned as 'well-rounded characters'; rather I'm thinking of memorably 
differentiated consciousnesses." Perhaps it would be better to speak simply 
of simple vs. complex characterization.

Simple characters like Profane and Stencil admirably serve their purpose, 
but they don't do much more than that. They're not awful characters, by any 
means. In the words of Pynchon from the Slow Learner intro, they are "no 
longer just lying there on the slab but beginning at least to twitch some 
and blink their eyes open." But I'd argue that they can't do what Pynchon's 
more complex characters can do: they can't surprise us. Once we get to know 
them, we can pretty much predict their actions. Stencil is the paranoid one 
from the Hothouse and Profane is the anti-paranoid guy from the Street, and 
they act accordingly.
A more complex character like Slothrop does have the ability to surprise us. 
In the course of GR he manages to be both paranoid and anti-paranoid; both a 
callous asshole and a considerate, gentle soul. And it becomes even more 
pronounced in M&D: the impulsive, irrational Dixon suddenly exclaims that 
Newton is his Deity, while the supposedly rational astronomer Mason hunts 
for ghosts, etc.

You're absolutely right that Pynchon's work to a large extent is a 
"consideration of the circumstances we find ourselves in and what drives the 
circumstances". Pynchon is interested in the inhuman systems all around us, 
but in his later works he's grown increasingly aware that WE create and help 
sustain these inhuman systems; WE are "what drives the circumstances", not 
some abstract historical forces (see Vineland p. 80 for Sasha's thoughts on 
this). Pynchon certainly does have "other places and things to visit", as 
you put it, but I'd argue that he has grown just as interested in the 
characters who live in these places and consume those things. Complex 
characters who sometimes behave in surprising ways - as opposed to e.g. 
Stencil and Profane - can only add to Pynchon's analysis of the systems in 
which we've imprisoned ourselves. They are, after all, not separate from us: 
we constitute these systems, and a more complex characterization can only 
lead to a more nuanced understanding of them.

Best,

Tore

>From: bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net>

>I don't think that flat characters are necessarily a weakness.   Flat
>characters can be meant as stereotypes to one degree or another and
>they can set off a satire extremely well.   They lend themselves to
>the comic more readily than the "well developed" character.
>"Rounded"  (fleshed out)  characters can end up driving a narrative,
>flat ones get driven by the plot or theme or something else.
>Rounded characters are built on their emotions and motives (I think)
>and Pynchon doesn't usually go there in much depth;  he has other
>places and things to visit.

[...]

>Bekah

..

_________________________________________________________________
Få 250 MB gratis lagerplads på MSN Hotmail:  http://www.hotmail.com