Pynchon on his characters

[Mark Kohut]

"Round about 1910, human nature changed"----Virginia Woolf



----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Jackson <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:14:48 AM
Subject: Re: Pynchon on his characters

Probably been mentioned before, but Virginia Woolf signed her letters "V.", and Pynchon had the example of 'Orlando' to work with ... Woolf's approach to character and characterisation is definitely an influence.

Slothrop's paunch is an indication of character and inclination more so than physique. I agree that Mason & Dixon are much more physically present and visible than others. But both are also now wonderfully fleshed-out personalities and this is by virtue of Pynchon's novel rather than the historical record. I think George and Martha are quite alive in M&D also.

Tanner is spot on about Underworld's characters as opposed to Pynchon's. Delillo's characters are unmemorable across the board I think.

Oedipa's a feminist or proto-feminist, but perhaps not 'female' enough ...

Didn't realise Hollander had a letter from Pynchon ... or that he sold it ...

all best


On 16/05/2009, at 5:51 AM, John Bailey wrote:

> I kinda see substituting physical description for "character" as a
> form of fetishisation; turning characters into objects, rather than
> subjects. Which has been a problematic idea since V. at least. It's
> what V. attempts to do to herself - become pure object.

>> 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.
>> 

> 
>>>  Tore Rye Andersen:
>> 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.
>