unreliable narrators

[John Bailey]

No... but I see a bigger distinction between these two characters and
the authorial voice. Doc might be unreliable to some associates but
the narrator can see into his mind and read his thoughts and it
doesn't seem as if they're being misrepresented by that omniscient
narrator.

Actually I'm now thinking there's a strong case for keeping a forcible
distinction between Doc and the narrator. Doc may or may not be stoned
most of the time, whatever. But the narrative voice certainly comes
across as a bit confused and perhaps under the influence at some
points. The way it chooses to describe this mystery is determinedly
loopy.

Maybe Pynchon asked himself the question: what would a noir novel
written by a hippie stoner look like? Any of its shortcomings might
then be considered as conscious, since Pynchon is setting out on a
comic, perhaps ironic task from the outset. Plus he gets to inject
some more serious undercurrents into the narrative that the narrator
clearly and annoying fails to pick up on and follow deeper.

This is all just one reading though and to be honest it might be a bit
of a stretch. It's not how I read the book. I reckon the narrator here
is pretty darn reliable, just a bit exasperating.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is Lew Basnight 'unreliable' in AtD?  That is one analogy to Doc for me.
>
> I do not see how Lew B. is in anay way.
>
> --- On Thu, 12/10/09, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: unreliable narrators
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 9:30 PM
>> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>