LRB Review of IV, & Pynchon's Characters - the decency issue

[Carvill, John]

Right. And by the way I have now discovered it was Steven M who posted the LRB link, so thanks.

What's so interesting about IV, from a 'character' point of view, is the subtle play between history, autobiography, and fiction. The fact that the real Pynchon was right there, in the novel's now, is autobiographical enough. That he spent that time writing GR, which itself makes similar play - not least by 'ending' in LA - almost forces us to reconsider GR in light of IV. Add all this up and you have a book which is, as Marcellus Wallace might well say, "pretty f**king far from" the simple little page-turner of a stoner noir pastiche beach read some people still seem to regard IV as.

Mix into that the fact of Pynchon's autobiographical obscurity, and what the LRB piece calls "the overlap between paranoia and fiction" in Pynchon's work, as well as the blurring of fiction and reality and, well, you have a collection of fictional rings and chains in nets only God can tell the meshes of.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: János Székely 


Yes, the LRB piece is great (ending with my obsession and all) but the
statement that "there's never anyone to sympathize with" is not quite
to the point. It's true that the percentage of disgusting, psychotic,
downright evil, or just plain weak and irresponsible characters is too
high for a reader educated in the classical tradition to bear (but not
for a cyberpunk or Tarantino fan, e.g.). Still, from Rachel Owlglass
to Sportello, from Oedipa to Bodine (whose real-life model the author
himself professes to "like so much" in the intro to Slow Learner)
there is an array of characters, sometimes central, who are just good,
decent, and compassionate whatever their faults, quirks, and inanities
may be. And the population of IV, in sum, though not on the decent
side and not even balanced, might be more tilted towards decency than
usual with Pynchon.

János

2009/9/4 Carvill, John <john.carvill at sap.com>:
> Thanks to whoever posted the LRB review. Robin? Apologies for not having
> time to check...
>
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n17/jone01_.html?utm_source=3Dnewsletter&utm_me
> diu=m=3Demail&utm_campaign=3D3117
>
>
> A brilliant piece, and made me think, re. this bit...
>
> "Something that people who don't like Pynchon often complain about is
> that his 'characters' aren't really characters, in the sense that
> developed over the course of the 19th century: basically, there's never
> anyone to sympathise with. For his fans, there's always enough else
> going on for this not to be a problem. But it's also the case that
> Pynchon's fiction reveals something bogus, even sinister, about the very
> idea of 'sympathetic characters'. As readers we may rely on our liberal
> humanist ability to 'empathise' with immaterial strangers, but we can
> still tolerate with bland equanimity the manifold suffering of the
> wretched of the earth when we put down our novels and turn on the
> evening news. That's OK: if we couldn't, we'd all be suicide bombers.
> Still, in this respect, Pynchon's alienating novels are altogether more
> 'realistic' than any number of finely wrought explorations of individual
> consciousness."
>
> ...all true of course. But you could always have argued that the
> ever-present, central 'character' with whom we readers can sympathise,
> was Thomas Pynchon. And in the case of 'Inherent Vice', this line is (as
> pointed out here) blurred even further, because we know that, just set
> slightly to one side of Doc, is Pynchon, writing that great behemoth of
> a book we all so cherish.
>
>
> I thought I was bored with IV reviews now, but this one's refreshed the
> experience.
>
> Cheers
> J
>
>
>
>
>