Prising some Character and Emotion out of Pynchon's Books

[Campbel Morgan]

A correct reading? Well, I think we do a decent job of learning a lot
of things so we are certainly not guilty of "Benny Yo-Yo" who  learns
not a thing and is still standing there in the same clothes he came
in, at the conclusion of his-story.  If flat characters are also
non-dynamic characters, Benny is a flat, non-dynamic, inert, and
heartless figure not even worthy perhaps of the term, character.
While Benny has no cognative or intellectual curiosity about the
"facts", the truth, the true interpretation, the true  reason, true
origins, the true motives, or the truth about life itself or the human
condition--all those Realist and Modern concerns, Stencil has too
much. The Middle, the possible, the subjunctive, is a good reading.
But when this kind of reading argues that the novel, GR advocates
Mafia or Drug Dealing or that AGFTD, written by an author who lives in
a city that was only recently bombed, not once but twice, advocates
violent anarchy, it's time to pull back to the Modern Reality of
possible readings. Remember too, Pynchon's texts are Modern in this
sense: they reject the gnostic dehumanization of the sacred. Human
Life is sacred. Right?


On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Carvill, John<john.carvill at sap.com> wrote:
>> As Grant notes, if we take a modern stance and we follow Benny or
> Stencil, we will either learn not a goddamn thing or misread the novel.
>
> So what, pray, would a 'correct' reading of the novel look like?
>
>
>