the Merle center

[barbie gaze]

The reality and fictionality of characters is an essential concern of all
Pynchon works. I'm a bit surprized to read that P-List readers of Pynchon's
works find fault with the massive AGtD on the grounds that it has no
central character or consciousness or whatever. Pynchon has, as Paul noted,
improved his writing over the years; he is a better writer in AGtD than in
GR or M&D  (I won't include V. because it is his first novel and he is not
yet a mature and great writer early on, and I'll skip over the California
series because these are not serious efforts), but he has alos improved his
story-telling and his characterizations. Those that find fault with the
structure are not comfortable reading Pynchon and so I wonder why they
wouod read a book that makes them uncomfortable more than once. Hell, there
are great works, works far greater than AGtD for those who want a structure
that has some sort of centre that holds or some sort of protagonist once
can hold on to or even bring hime to mommy.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Heikki Raudaskoski
<hraudask at sun3.oulu.fi>wrote:

>
> AtD didn't work for me much either. But I really love "One Hundred Years
> of Solitude" which is a tapestry of characters, not one of whom arguably is
> the central character. Perhaps the protagonist is the Buendía family, or
> the village of Macondo; the multitude of this character doesn't prevent it
> from being quite solitary, as we know...
>
> This begs the question: am I being patronizing here? More prone to accept
> the lack of one or two individual protagonists when the narrative takes
> place in an organic (however ironically OHYoS deals with this organicity)
> and archaic/premodern (well, initially at least) third-world realm?
>
>
> Heikki
>
> Lainaus Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>:
>
>
> On 2/28/2012 10:16 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>> I've harped on this too many times before, but the reason ATD falls
>>> short (for me) is that there's no protagonist. It's not that a
>>> protagonist provides a "moral" center, so much as a point of reference.
>>> Slothrop isn't the first person we meet in GR, and he leaves early, but
>>> his journey is our journey. Oedipa and Doc Sportello have conventional
>>> protagonist roles, which is why COL49 and IV are probably the most
>>> accessible of Pynchon's books (I love the first, dislike the second). V.
>>> and M&D both have dual protagonists, which is better than no
>>> protagonist. Only ATD stands out as having none. I can understand why he
>>> did it - it's a reflection of the time it takes place, when quantum
>>> theory is upending Newtonian physics, Europe is fragmenting, etc. The
>>> center no longer holds. But it's hard to read a book that has no central
>>> character. We have no place in it. I really do think that's what
>>> Pynchon's driving at - he wants us to feel as dislocated in time and
>>> space as his multitude of characters do. But I just didn't want to spend
>>> that much time not caring. I prefer to join Slothrop or Oedipa in their
>>> paranoid journeys, than to be jostled around like a random gas molecule
>>> for 1000+ pages.
>>>
>>>
>> I have to agree with Laura on this. I can identify with Slothrup more
>> than I can with any of the main characters of AtD.
>>
>> That kind of connection to a novel is necessary for me.  I read AtD at
>> least twice (long ago) and the writing in many places is about as good
>> as it gets. But it's not a satisfying story because I never cared what
>> happened.
>>
>> P
>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120228/c0e562ae/attachment.html>