IV "autobiographical"?

[John Bailey]

I think if Pynchon had wanted to write an autobiographical novel he
would have written an autobiographical novel. I agree that Doc as a
stand-in for Pynchon is highly problematic; for me, the problem would
be imagining that a hugely successful writer in his 70s didn't have a
powerful control over his characters as characters, instead
accidentally letting himself seep into them without being aware of the
process. I'm absolutely certain that a lot of IV is informed by
personal history, but surely he's chosen what parts of that history he
saw worthy of inclusion (and what not).

By my logic, then, you'd be better off looking at older writing for
clues as to what Pynchon thinks or likes or whatever; ie when he had
less command of his craft. Then again, he was probably also the kind
of writer to throw in all kinds of non-experiental stuff just to sound
more knowledgeable than he was (ie all the Baedeker research).

Anyway, Doc is likeable in a goofy way but there are aspects to him
that I don't really dig, or don't really get, at least. Both of which
are fine.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Doug Millison<dougmillison at comcast.net> wrote:
> How to separate Pynchon the person from the characters in his books? This is
> the question that seems to animate Pynchon-L more than any other.
>
> In one sense, I know that's impossible, how could his creations in any way
> be separate from the author?
>
> At the same time I also know how an artist can in fact achieve enough
> distance from a work of art to let it develop and breathe on its own,
> shaping it as it grows to be sure, yet aware that something new has entered
> the picture, something which is not identical with the author.  I don't know
> how to account for this in critical theory, but I know a tiny little bit
> about how it works in practice.
>
> The second big question that has led to much p-list hand-wringing,
> heartbreak, and laughter over the years, yielding fault lines that exist to
> this very day:  What, exactly, does Pynchon mean by putting his characters
> in the situations where we find them, acting and speaking as they do?
>
> I try to be careful about making categorical statements in that regard,
> knowing that readers can generally keep coming up with details in P's texts,
> like grabbing verses from the Bible, to make their points.  His books, IV
> included, are complex enough to  support many nterpretations from a variety
> of intelligent and reasonable people.  There are enough differences in the
> various critical and theoretical approaches that readers bring to Pynchon's
> novels to produce startling differences in interpretation, too.  Enough rich
> chocolaty goodness to give us each our own Pynchon, if we want or need one.
>  I mean, we could read IV through the lens of the Holocaust, if we wanted to
> do that, it's hardly a stretch  when we've got a wanna-be Nazi wolf man in
> Chapter 1, textually linked to the future Blicero as described in GR, if I
> understood correctly what was posted the other day in that regard.
>
> IF Pynchon somehow intends Doc as an autobiographical stand-in for his
> historical self --- a BIG if and problematic for all kinds of reasons, in my
> opinion -- that would be quite a statement he's making about himself, based
> on what we see of Doc in Ch 1 and what we know of him from the book trailer
> video that Pynchon narrates.   I mean, IF Pynchon intends Doc to be himself,
> what does it mean that he gives Doc a back story that includes helping the
> police set up drug busts and shake-down scams?  Would he be setting us up
> for a tale of redemption, where we grow to love Doc despite his checkered
> past?  Or what?
>
> Do we know enough about Pynchon's actual biography to nail down any of this
> as truly autobiographical?
>
> Some of what is taken as given about Pynchon is in fact problematic:  the
> idea, generally accepted as gospel truth, that Pynchon was so messed up on
> drugs when he wrote GR that he later couldn't remember what he had been
> writing, or whatever it is precisely that JS wrote about Pynchon back in the
> day -- it's a great story, but since even that journalist doesn't mention
> that anybody else was in the room when Pynchon supposedly told him that, I
> don't necessarily take it as true, it can't be corroborated, and it may not
> be wise to take what the reporter says at face value.  When I know, from
> first-hand communication with that writer, that he had a specific axe to
> grind wrt to TRP, and when you realize to what an extent that particular
> journalist seems to have been driven by jealousy and a desire for revenge, I
> have to wonder if he might have been exaggerating or even inventing out of
> whole cloth the idea that Pynchon  somehow was lucky enough to get drugged
> up and reach into the clouds and pull out GR whole, because that apocryphal
> anecdote is of a piece by other statements by this journalist that add up to
> the concept that TRP isn't really that great a writer -- in a book that was
> published around the time M&D was released, this journo even has his old
> girlfriend claim that he the journalist was the true poet while Pynchon was
> just a poseur and parasite, or something to that effect.
>
> It may be easier to find bits and pieces of the historical Pynchon scattered
> throughout IV.  I suspect that in part what he's done with IV is to work in
> all kinds of references to his personal past and to touch on a number of
> things in his various books that seem important to him at this stage of his
> career and life.  I don't think it's as simple as any single character
> standing in for Pynchon or somebody from his life.  Not claiming any special
> knowledge or insight, just stating my suspicions, with no need to find
> anything in particular in IV.  Just along for the ride and the fun of it.
>