BtZ42 ye olde unbelievable story

[Joseph Tracy]

Yes I agree that would be a reading that is not reliant on an unreliable narrative. And I agree that we do have a lot of paranoia and power fantasies around the map. But the idea that Slothrop is impressing Tantivy and that the memories that he has of real women, and their names are all invented just doesn’t work for me. It fits with human psychology to some degree, but I find myself wanting more textual evidence. I understand it and am interested to hear how that interpretation plays out in a close reading of the text, but I am leaning  another way to see how that plays out along the lines that I have outlined. So I’m hoping we can be friendly on this question, make the best case and not imply that other readings are shallow or ill-considered. It may be that P wants to leave both options open just to keep the  implied philosophic debates open. 
  
  I will be very interested to hear how you think about the psychic phenomena in the next chapter.
 

> On Apr 11, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Much of this discussion seems to hinge on a particular question regarding Slothrop’s affairs and  whether they happened or whether they are accurately connected to V2 rocket strikes.
> 
> As I raised that w/r/t the Duifhuizen article, let me say I consider that ("are they accurately connected?") quite separate from the "unreliable narrator" discussion. First McHale, then D in much more detail, point out that
> 
> (1) Most readers, reviewers and critics for years did take (and many today still do take) the connection as "real" -- because we see Bloat photographing the map, because we're told via long Pointsman & Mexico exchanges coming up soon that its stars match V-2 strikes when maps are overlaid, and because much of the plot for the next 500 pages is built around Them pull Slothrop's strings because They are very concerned with what Slothrop's gift might mean for the future of science, rocket warfare, etc... so much that They'd castrate him rather than let this "wild power" proliferate.
> 
> (2) But there are a number of signs all along that the map is not the pure, hard "data" they take it to be. Therefore, the next 500 pages are, at least in part, a story of Them projecting Their paranoid fantasies as much as any of the individual bozos on this bus. And to the extent we swallow(ed) the connection, maybe some over-all views of Slothrop as the poor victim of Cold Hard Deterministic Science might need correcting... towards, say, Slothrop Puts Up Stars to Impress Tantivy, Unwittingly Causing Slapstick Chinese Fire Drill in the Halls of Power. Just sayin. 
> 
> This is tricky storytelling, but *not* "unreliable narration" in any sense that Booth or most narratologists would accept. The book's narrator never independently validates the beliefs of Pointsman, Mexico, the rest of the White Visitation crew, or their rarely seen superiors. The narrator shows them convincing themselves and persuading others, listens in on their worries about What It Means -- but never says they're correct about "It" in the first place.  
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Perfect and elegant choice of a sonnet.
> I also benefit from Ish's attention to film, about which I have more limited and sporadic knowledge.
> I would add to your description of the possibilities allowed by P’s narrative choices not only parody and irony but truth told slant and straight, descriptive, detailed. metaphoric and historic.
> 
> What I am personally uncomfortable with in terms of reliability of the narrator is a novel where we can’t know that events described in this fictional world are reliable within the framework of the book. At that point all discussion becomes pointless; there is no grounds for settling misunderstanding because there is no grounds for understanding or knowing what is being said.. If Pointsman or Mexico just imagined his foot getting caught in the toilet, or if the narrator just wanted to lie about that event, then the reader is left with no way of connecting to the artistic intent or even the events of the story.. My feeling is that P works hard to construct a story that checks out and holds up as a carefully narrated plot within its own framework, but that he is skilled at showing the  limitations/unreliability of any narrator/s along with the confusion produced by many points of view from the characters.. A tough act.
> 
> Much of this discussion seems to hinge on a particular question regarding Slothrop’s affairs and  whether they happened or whether they are accurately connected to V2 rocket strikes. I want to say that for me the narrative is clear enough and precise enough to indicate that in GR, Slothrop had many encounters with English women, some , if not all, leading to sexual relations, but all important enough to be memorable and inspire stars on his map. The second question is more difficult but it seems to me that P has constructed a plot where both psychic and chemical phenomena are given tremendous significance that specifically make the connection of Slothrop’s hard-ons to Rocket strikes plausible and important within the world of the book. Why Pynchon seems to go to such painstaking elaboration to make this crazy idea stick has potent cultural and historical justification. I personally will be leaning toward an interpretation that says the stars are tokens of women who induced sexual fantasies or affairs in Slothrop and that these fantasies/affairs predicted rocket strikes. I don’t have to believe that Pynchon finds such a connection plausible to believe he would use it as a core plot device.  The reason that P has shaped such a story is much more challenging and of greater interest to me.
> 
> What I am trying for in my own limitations as a reader is not a comprehensive reading but a coherent reading that will hold up to textual scrutiny, and make sense of and even in its’ best moments offer satisfying insights into a great work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:02 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are endless possibilities for reliability and for un-reliability and for combinations of the endless variations of these two possibilities. Distance too offers endless possibilities.
> >
> > I've been reading short stories. Not the kind I've ever read about on this list. The kind, I think, folks here might find dreadful. These stories are said to fit into the renaissance in American short story making. They are realistic for the most part. And they are written by and heavily influenced by academics. What's striking about them is how they use narrators.
> >
> > For example, in one story the narrator tells a bunch of stories, sometimes with photographs to aid her, to audiences who are amazed with her story telling skills, and especially her fancy, that is, with her ability to make, from her imagination, fantastic stories. But the stories are true. They are, essentially, parts of an autobiography. When she tells her stories to her lover, when she, essentially  confesses to her lover, her lover never believes her. It is in this problem that reliability is established. We believe her because others don't. A clever turn. Reminded me of Shakespeare's sonnet about lovers that lie.
> >
> > When my love swears that she is made of truth,
> > I do believe her, though I know she lies,
> > That she might think me some untutored youth,
> > Unlearnèd in the world’s false subtleties.
> > Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
> > Although she knows my days are past the best,
> > Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue:
> > On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed.
> > But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
> > And wherefore say not I that I am old?
> > Oh, love’s best habit is in seeming trust,
> > And age in love loves not to have years told.
> >     Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
> >     And in our by lies we flattered be.
> >
> >
> > There are, as Booth, in The Rhetoric of Fiction, where the terms reliable and unreliable are coined,  endless possibilities.
> >
> > GR opens in a dream. The dreamer manages other people fantasies. Fantasies are manufactured with films and reels spin into reals.
> >
> > In film, sometimes, there is silence. Sometimes in silent films there is screaming we can see but not hear and sometimes the music of the film makes a scream and a paprodic commentary on the plot.
> >
> > One thing is for sure, Pynchon's narrative choices are important, if only because they permit greater opportunities for irony and parody.
> >
> > In GR, the history of film making is very important.
> >
> > Is the narrator of Pirate's dream, Pirate's dreaming mind,  or someone else's, or is it a movie voice over? Or have the reels meshed with the reals and dreams and fantasies of actors in a world that, as Shakespeare might have said, is all staged....all theater/theatre?
> >
> >
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l