Pynchon's misdirection

[pynchonoid]

How is it that Varo wouldn't, doesn't, or can't lead
to Varro, again?  

Seems a rather natural progression, and I've never
really understood this rap, it's almost a knee-jerk
reflex on Pynchon-l (no offense intended, Tore - this
topic comes up often enough, and it goes in the same
direction each time), that such an interpretive move
requires some extraordinary leap of faith on the part
of a reader. I don't think that's the case.

Pynchon's text does lead, and mislead, seems to me. 
Leads me straight to the dictionary or encyclopedia
every time I open a Pynchon novel, fo' shizzle, to see
what's real, what's invented, what's the meaning of
those big strange words.  

And when the text offers up a name like that Varo,
kinda makes a reader want to know more,  I open that
big reference book,  find Varro not far from Varo,
that's kind of interesting, too.   Is that too much of
a leap, for  a writer of Pynchon's erudition?  Maybe
not.  Too far a leap for Pynchon's readers?  Maybe not
- seems to me that Pynchon can count on readers being
quite willing to get out the dictionary and the
encyclopedia and lots of other books and start piecing
things together - we've been doing it every since he
published V. 

It's a subtle game that Pynchon plays, leaving so much
up to the reader, yet also structuring things such
that, in following  leads like Varo, more than one
reader finds him or herself channeled as well as any 
Chicago stockyard pig.

P.S.  If you haven't read Hollander's essays, please
do.  He has done an incredible amount of work
researching Pynchon's texts.  You'll be glad you did. 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front