Correction to post Still Chap 3

[Paul Mackin]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Kohut" <markekohut at yahoo.com>
To: "János Székely" <miksaapja at gmail.com>
Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Correction to post Still Chap 3


>
> Janos writes:
> No, she cannot know about "Metzger". In Ch 3, sentence 2 it is
> "logical" for the narrator, repeated at the end to point to sentence 3
> (I seems), where it is logical for Oedipa.
>
> Yes, I think it is They who manage the tower but it is also They who
> lure Oedipa from the tower to Their world (which may/may not exist).
> Also, "much of the revelation" comes through "little windows" (of the
> tower; btw I've read somewhere that maas is Dutch for loophole; sorry
> if it's been mentioned here already). So it is logical for Oedipa: if
> there wasn't that night's infidelity, she wouldn't go to the Scope,
> encounter WASTE signs, the muted horn, and neither to the Tank Theater
> where she first hears the Name.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I read sentence two of Chap 3 as one told by an 'effaced 
> narrator"...limited third person omniscience. TRP has used it, at least
> from the scene of Teflon 'shooting' Benny in bed in "V". Henry James most 
> made it visible and effective, I learned in researching it.
>
> "EFFACED NARRATOR: Third-person narrators can be almost invisible. When 
> the narrator uses only language and sentiments appropriate to the 
> character acting as the current centre of consciousness, the narrator is 
> said to be effaced."
>
> Henry James called this “effaced narration” and often used 
> limited-third-omniscient in his books. Tons of the best writers use it 
> today: John Banville ...
>
> So, I read it as 'from Oedipa's pov..'.....but if I am wrong, then we do 
> have the 'narrator' commenting....

Yes, I think Pynchon would have a pretty hard time effacing himself.

TAke the second paragraph. The stamp collection is described in the most 
poetical of terms. But Oedipa had "not seen the fascination" and now sees 
"only another headache."

 I don't know where I would come down on the second sentence except that 
it's even curiouser than the first sentence.  It's almost as if the 
confusing and clumsy language is designed to reflect O's state of mind.

Hard to say.

P





>
> Love Maas as 'loophole'.......and, if the tower IS everywhere--and we 
> never learn otherwise in the book---then the revelations, the Tristero are 
> seen via loopholes...........love it and it fits.
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> írta (2009. május 30. 20:24):
>>
>> The They is NOT Tristero, of course, but those who manage the 
>> tower....those who rule.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>> To: János Székely <miksaapja at gmail.com>
>> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:04:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: CofL49, still Chap 3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember your great Metzger post......but Oedipa cannot know it...
>>
>> are we to think she came to learn it, as you have taught us all?
>> Which lends lots more weight to the after-book understanding---since she 
>> did not learn it before the end of the book.
>>
>> So, since Metzger is the first one she interacted with ATER she left
>> her tower, then whatever the Triostero is, must start there.............
>>
>> Is it just Metzger or her infidelity with Metzger?....that is the 
>> beginning of
>> the They of Tristero, you think?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark:
>> Why is her infidelity with Metzger the LOGICAL starting point?
>>
>> See my post about Metzger Post, which "logically" (not historically,
>> not "in the real world") precedes the alternative Tristero system.
>> Plus Metzger is introduced in these two sentences (16): "He turned out
>> to be so good- looking that Oedipa thought at first They, somebody up
>> there, were putting her on. It had to be an actor." (Note the
>> anticipation of GR's "They-system" here.) And Metzger does turn out to
>> be an actor in the "real or not or both" game of the movie on the
>> Tube, which itself is an early model for Oedipa's perception of the
>> Tristero.
>>
>> Janos
>>
>> 2009/5/30 Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> "If one object behind her discovery of what she was to label the 
>>> Tristero System
>>> or often only the Tristero ( as if it might be something's secret title) 
>>> were to bring
>>> to an end her encapsulation in her tower, then that night's infidelity 
>>> with Metzger would
>>> logically be the starting point for it; logically. That's what would 
>>> come to haunt her most,
>>> perhaps: the way it fitted, logically, together. As if ( as she'd 
>>> guessed that first minute in San Narcisco)
>>> there were revelation in progress all around her."
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is her infidelity with Metzger the LOGICAL starting point? One is a 
>>> faithful wife in the tower?
>>> Since Mucho wasn't right (for her), then Metzger was the logical start 
>>> of searching for love? Or
>>> sex outside of marriage is a freer "love", a liberation for her, a 
>>> woman?
>>>
>>> Notice how many guys want her in the book..but get nowhere.
>>>
>>> Or, an act of adultery is the start of a shadow value system? The start 
>>> of finding the Tristero?
>>> Is this 'shadow act' ---Ralph Ellison's book of non-fiction was called 
>>> Shadow & Act
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>