Pynchon on his characters

[Tore Rye Andersen]

Rob Jackson:
 
> It's long been a bit of an urban myth that Pynchon's characters are  
> cartoons or ciphers. He doesn't really do physical characteristics for  
> their own sake (e.g., could Oedipa be African-American?) and while  
> their names and taste in boudoir couture (Oedipa's clothing is a  
> subject worth looking into ...) border on the fanciful, there are  
> consistencies and intensities in the emotional lives of many of the  
> central characters which are very authentic and expertly-orchestrated.
 
Seconded. I've always liked Tony Tanner's take on this issue. In an essay
on DeLillo's Underworld he criticizes DeLillo's poor characterization and
contrasts it with Pynchon's:
 
"[I]n Underworld, the many voices start to seem just part of one, tonally
invariant, American Voice. There are hundreds of names in the book, but
I would be prepared to bet that [...] none will be remembered six months
after reading the novel. As, I find, for instance, are Pynchon's Stencil
and Benny Profane; Oedipa Maas; Tyrone Slothrop and Roger Mexico; and - I
predict - Mason & Dixon. It is not a question of anything so old-fashioned 
as 'well-rounded characters'; rather I'm thinking of memorably diffentiated
consciousnesses."
 
"Memorably differentiated consciousnesses".... That seems to me a very fitting
description of Pynchon's characters. And on a personal note, no character in 
all of literature is as 'alive' to me as Slothrop, even at his most cartoonish.

 
_________________________________________________________________
More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/