unreliable narrators

[John Bailey]

I draw a distinction between P's novels which do relentlessly track a
leading character - Oedipa, Doc - or two - Benny & Stencil, Mason &
Dixon - and the kaleidescopic narratives of GR, VL and AtD. I agree
that perhaps the authorial voice in these does align itself with
particular characters at many points, but I reckon that overstates
things. In fact, in M&D and AtD the authorial voice is more of an
hilarious 'character' than the ostensible subjects it narrates. In M&D
this voice might be attributable to Rev. Cherrycoke but it wanders off
a fair bit. I still maintain that AtD's 'voice' is very much concerned
with genres, their imitation and their about-with-messing.

Re-reading AtD at the moment, I was struck by what must be P's only
deployment of the first person in fiction - the Chums of Chance author
suddenly mentions letters he's (?) received from regular readers. Of
course this is a completely fictional voice in itself.

Not sure of my point now. In any case, the narrative voice of IV is
one of the strangest things about the novel. It's the least
lyrical/poetic/complex/whatever voice he's used. For someone with such
an incredible control over his 'narrators' it seems like a first
draft, or that he decided not to care too much in this instance. Or
something. But perhaps the hidden unreliability of the narrator is
only there for the really deep reader to draw out.

I like the Remains of the Day mention there Mark. Haven't read it but
we've raised this similar chronology problem with IV and it doesn't
add up, right?

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I use it in the same way, yet many varieties of 'unreliablity' exist.
>
> First, most of p's novels have an authorial narrator who is merged with a leading character. This voice sees straight and seldom reports events differently than we have experienced them throguh the narrator.
>
> And, i cannot believe we are---i am---talking about ALL PYNCHON'S NARRATORS in one post....Such analysis, criticism is particiular or it
> is balloon gas.....
>
> So, again, Doc gets it right over and over. Which is why when his voice merges with the larger one---the end---we believe it straight. [fog, what's been lost, etc.]
>
> --- On Thu, 12/10/09, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: unreliable narrators
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 8:27 PM
>> As I noted in previous posts, when I
>> use the term, I use it as it was
>> first used and defined by Booth.
>>
>> In fiction (as implemented in literature, film, theatre,
>> etc.) an
>> unreliable narrator (a term coined by Wayne C. Booth in his
>> 1961 book
>> The Rhetoric of Fiction  is a narrator whose
>> credibility has been
>> seriously compromised. The use of this type of narrator is
>> called
>> unreliable narration and is a narrative mode that can be
>> developed by
>> the author for a number of reasons, though usually to make
>> a negative
>> statement about the narrator. This unreliability can be due
>> to
>> psychological instability, a powerful bias, a lack of
>> knowledge, or
>> even a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader or
>> audience.
>> Unreliable narrators are usually first-person narrators,
>> but
>> third-person narrators can also be unreliable.
>>
>>
>> All of Pynchon's novels have unreliable narrators.
>>
>
>
>
>