unreliable narrators

[Mark Kohut]

Seconded, basically, re IV, except as I've stated even Doc gets just about everything important in the novel, right....

yes, like L49, much is in the satiric detail.

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Tore Rye Andersen <torerye at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Tore Rye Andersen <torerye at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: unreliable narrators
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:17 PM
> 
> Alice:
>  
> > What about IV? Can we agree that IV's narrator is
> unreliable and
> > therefore fits out definition (W. Booth)?
> 
> I see the narratorial situation in IV as very similar to
> the one in Lot 49:
> The narrative perspective is close to Doc's perspective
> thoughout, but it is
> not identical to Doc's perspective. Doc is not a narrator,
> he's a character,
> and while his perceptions may certainly be unreliable, the
> narrator of his 
> story is not. In fact, as is the case with Lot 49, the
> narrator actually helps
> us see that Doc's perceptions are not always reliable. So
> no, we can't agree
> that the narrator of IV fits Booth's definition of an
> unreliable narrator. 
>  
> As for M&D: Cherrycoke is an unreliable narrator, or -
> in the novel's own words -
> an "untrustworthy remembrancer," but the narrator of his
> narration - the outer 
> frame in the nested narratives of the novel - is not.
>    
>         
>           
>   
> _________________________________________________________________
> Keep your friends updated—even when you’re not signed
> in.
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010