M&D Deep Duck 7-9: Why doesn't Mason sleep with Austra?

[Mark Kohut]

And HOW is the beauty of his subtlety PUT ON THE PAGE?



On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am going to agree with this generally, but I do think there is
> reliability in this novel and SOME deep insights into History,
> American history, into Reality
> and we can unearth more of them.
>
> Look: it can be a THEME that History, in a big H 'theoretical way" is
> a created metanarrative now, but the fact of slavery was not and is
> not in this novel.
> What perspectives does P bring to THAT/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, David Ewers <dsewers at comcast.net> wrote:
>> I hear you.  But we could also look at it this way:  Using '...the task of
>> trying to establish or bash a character's or narrator's reliability in this
>> novel, MD...' as a starting point, and traversing the frustrations that are
>> bound to result from it, so finally coming to the realization of its
>> futility - that there's no such Thing as Historical Reality, and no Reliable
>> Narrator, only lenses and more lenses and mirrors and arbitrary lines...,
>> isn't so futile.
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 8:49 AM, David Morris wrote:
>>
>> I think the task of trying to establish or bash a character's or narrator's
>> reliability in this novel, MD, is an utterly futile task.  It will only
>> result in discounting everything that the author has written.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't there an implied difference between Cherrycoke's  youthful post
>>> revolutionary audience who might not question how he knows this shit and the
>>> more canny post-modern readers.  Which of these audiences might get the real
>>> import is up for grabs. But the fact that the narrative portrays historical
>>> figures gives Pynchon's assertion of fictional freedom negotiated through
>>> Cherrycoke less encumbrance.   Pynchon cares about history deeply and though
>>> he uses it for satire he seems also  to want to catch us by surprise with
>>> historical realities often glossed over or found only in the fine print.
>>> These devices tell us he is conscious of narrative issues but allows us to
>>> enjoy the ride.
>>>  The " think of it like a movie" take seems good advice.
>>>
>>> 9 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>
>>> > Agree with Morris, Becky, terrif guidepost. Thanks.
>>> >
>>> > Becky writes: "I think  Cherrycoke is *understood* (by the reader)  to
>>> > be telling the story to his audience but that's in the background of
>>> > the omniscient narrator parts and he's using his own words back there
>>> > with the kids,  not the words we're reading in the less personal (I,
>>> > us, we)  sections of the narrative.  Cherrycoke introduces a vision or
>>> > something - a flashback,  but the omniscient narrator is there at the
>>> > scene."
>>> >
>>> > I would say that this paragraph of yours is how I think I have been
>>> > reading it. Once Cherrycoke became the frame narrator, I presumed he
>>> > SOMEHOW told the whole story, Pynchon-cagy-like IN some scenes,
>>> > witnessing some scenes he could not have---told to him, if we want to
>>> > pin down how; and for some of the stories that Mason might never tell
>>> > the Reverend, I believe he would, ultimately, after their long
>>> > intimacy, have told Dixon who would recount. That Cherrycoke SOMEHOW
>>> > (part of Pynchon"s magic realism?, so to speak, along with Talking
>>> > Dogs, etc.)) tells the whole story is needed, it seems to me, to
>>> > explain how the Rev's audience would even get a 'whole story'. See p.
>>> > 75, where the Rev comes back to say, "Even by then", etc...implying,
>>> > yes, that he has told his audience of the preceding 'objective'
>>> > omnisciently seen Astronomy stuff at least. And the preceding risqué
>>> > stuff, per Jochen's challenge? Seems so to me.
>>> >
>>> > Here is more words on omniscient fictional narration than most want to
>>> > read: "Certain third-person omniscient modes are also classifiable as
>>> > "third person, subjective" modes that switch between the thoughts,
>>> > feelings, etc. of all the characters.This style, in both its limited
>>> > and omniscient variants, became the most popular narrative perspective
>>> > during the 20th century. In contrast to the broad, sweeping
>>> > perspectives seen in many 19th-century novels, third-person subjective
>>> > is sometimes called the "over the shoulder" perspective;
>>> >
>>> > "The third-person omniscient narrator is the least capable of being
>>> > unreliable--although the omniscient narrator can have its own
>>> > personality, offering judgments and opinions on the behavior of the
>>> > characters.
>>> > In addition to reinforcing the sense of the narrator as reliable (and
>>> > thus of the story as true), the main advantage of this mode is that it
>>> > is eminently suited to telling huge, sweeping, epic stories, and/or
>>> > complicated stories involving numerous characters."
>>> >
>>> > But, I do think Jochen is right on my lazy remark that because
>>> > Cherrycoke is an unreliable narrator, Austra's story is therefore
>>> > unreliable. No therefore at all. Jochen, and you and Laura and others
>>> > have to be right about some distinction between Cherrycoke's
>>> > self-confessed unreliability and Pynchon's historical reality. He has
>>> > to, as Jochen repeats---but I'd love him to make the case with
>>> > examples---be writing a real historical novel (of some kind) or else
>>> > there is no ground to his vision, no history there (allusion to: "no
>>> > there there").
>>> >
>>> > I think that his vision IS contained in the writing that is that
>>> > third-person omniscient narrator but often Not in the events but in
>>> > the prose, the subtexts, the intellectual notions embodied in reasons
>>> > behind the scenes, the words of those scenes, etc.(and his framings
>>> > and unreliabilities hold that vision too. Like an Ampersand)
>>> >
>>> > With talking dogs, mechanical ducks, other things, we cannot be in a
>>> > usual historical novel, right?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:52 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> "Think of it like a movie."
>>> >>
>>> >> Better Pynchon advice could not be had!
>>> >>
>>> >> DM
>>> > -
>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>>
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>>
>>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l