BtZ42 ye olde unbelievable story

[Monte Davis]

Oh, there is a correspondence.

But a correspondence of V-2 strikes with "places in London where Slothrop
previously got and often used a hardon" -- and note that the first
September strike, that on pp. 26-29, doesn't fit that -- is very different
from correspondence with "places on a map Slothrop picks out of the air
while standing in the ACHTUNG office spinning horndog yarns to Tantivy."
And I'm not even certain about *those* "predicting" in all cases. If the
stories are made up, why should we trust the dates associated with the
stars? And if we don't, what happens to all the careful math leading to
"hardon precedes BOOM by an average NN days"..?

That latter maybe-kinda-correspondence makes hash of the scenario Pointsman
posits (conditioning by Jamf - infant arousal - loud noises/Imipolex -
paradoxical reflex extinction - erections/sex in 1944) . And it's that
*unsupported* scenario that will drive much of what happens to Slothrop.
It's that *unsupported* scenario which will produce so many later "aha, now
it's starting to make sense" moments for us detective-minded readers,
savoring them like Rossini or peanut butter, as we learn more about
Slothrop's past.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:47 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't there one point that all interpreters of Slothrup's stars agree on?
> Don't they all predict V-2 strikes?  If so, somehow Slothrup has an
> extraordinary ability, no matter what its mechanism.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:36 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160411/e73f4c89/attachment.html>