M & D Group Read (cont.)

[Smoke Teff]

Lots going on here. For one, some earlier characters have what feel
like fully-realized human experiences (e.g. Oedipa). But also some of
their ciphery natures seems like purposeful effect.

Gravity's Rainbow seems to want to create characters who have
developed storylines and motivations but who, you might say, adhere to
them in such a strong way it's almost like they are exercising the
author's/universe's agency rather than their own (but that notion fits
in with a thematic vision across P's work, as opposed to being a
'flaw,' in my opinion). Also they are strongly defined by type in a
way reflective of the book's focus on, e.g., archetypes, also Tarot as
an expression thereof--they are not "naturalistic" human characters,
mostly. But creating new (even via old) kinds of characters is an
ambitious artistic project, not necessarily a flaw.

I think M&D's project involves a specific looking into--and (I think
this is key) narrative identification with--the ego-level experiences
of its characters in a way that is new in his work. Some of the
earlier work involved a kind of detachment from this narrative
identification in a way you could argue is thematic or a consequence
of the projects and "morals" (I use the word as Cherrycoke would) of
those different books.

Is this a consequence of artistic/personal maturity? Maybe? In Slow
Learner he does mention, e.g., having a "tinny" ear for dialogue early
on.

It seems like part of the later works feels absolved of the
RESPONSIBILITY to detach from that identification (IV, BE) in a way
that allows for what seems like more conventional ego-identified
storytelling. Maybe it's less maturity and more that those works were
obviously refracted through the work already done in the earlier work.

AtD seems to involve elements of both GR's and M&D's characterization
styles/perspectives, but is also new. It does not diminish or inhibit
the naturalistic ego-level experiences of its characters nor shy from
situating them in history--but views them somewhat from above, like
from a dirigible, floating on the thermals of grace. Investing less
deeply than M&D does, yes. But not showing shallower or more irreal
experiences, I don't think.


The extreme (and conventional) ego-identification of M&D does allow P
to go OUTSIDE the conventional storytelling devices of the ego, I
think. E.g. the book's insistence on going OUTSIDE TIME.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> "closer to the human experience of its characters"
>
> Unlike his earlier works, many 'old-fashioned' [nineteenth century
> ideal, say] book reviewers--and some not so old-fashioned kept finding
> this 'fault' with P's work: no rounded characters, really, all flat,
> all a flat board for satiric swatting.
>
> Then with M & D the vote was virtually unanimous: M & D are 'real'
>  rounded and fully human.
>
> Do we think TRP just finally got it together as an artist to now make
> this happen?
>
> Or do we think he consciously had reasons all along for any
> characterization differences?
>
> Or do we think the first paragraph summary is wrong?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:51:13 -0600
> Subject: Re: M & D Group Read (cont.)
> To: bulb at vheissu.net
> Cc: Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>, Mark Kohut
> <mark.kohut at gmail.com>, "\"“pynchon-l at waste.org“\""
> <pynchon-l at waste.org>, owner-pynchon-l at waste.org
>
> Would take some effort to prove (or even articulate, I say now as I
> read this over again) this but my sense of the two novels is that M&D
> is...closer to the human experience of its characters—perhaps because
> it goes deeply into fewer of them—and this correlates with a kind
> darker sense of the human tragedy that’s happening on the page in a
> way that also correlates with a...more slippery/smoky/ironic/winking
> with its prose and its linguistic fidelity to the moment. Time is
> weirder in M&D, and even the deviations from/steps outside it seem
> more nebulous in their logic, perhaps because that’s truer to the way
> the world felt to many at that moment in history (the Age of Reason
> being younger). Different projects, slightly different voices—both
> denser/more apparent contemporary prose mimicry and more overt
> anachronism in M&D
>
>> On Jan 23, 2018, at 1:48 AM, bulb at vheissu.net wrote:
>>
>> "Chinaman" in Against the Day; 3 occurences, all in an opium context:
>>
>> - AD One 8.1: 82 (no - and his opium)
>> - AD Two 16.1: 191 (Smoking opium with the -)
>> - AD Three 36.7: 496 (opium products [...] -)
>>
>> Michel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2018-01-22 22:44, Jochen Stremmel wrote:
>>> And as a bit of evidence that the resourceful wikipedians don't know
>>> everything:
>>> "In its original sense, Chinaman is almost entirely absent from
>>> British English, and has been since before 1965."
>>> The original sense obviously being: "a dealer of china". A British
>>> English speaker in London in the 2nd half of the 18th century could
>>> only mean that. (A new twist to the joak.)
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l