Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3421 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3421
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:08:34 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
>
> I don't think two novels could be much different in terms of narrative =
> reliability.
>
> In Pale Fire we are completely at sea. Each word in the book might have =
> been written, edited, planted, manipulated, colored or at least shaded =
> by any one of (at least) three candidate narrators. Trust no one.
>
> The correspondence between authority and author is right around a =
> hundred percent in Vineland, imo. The narrator is omniscient but just a =
> little choosy about what he wants to reveal, and when to reveal it. =
> Sometimes, as in "He sure would," it suits his purposes to let us know =
> what's *going* to happen. Whatever he says, he's not shitting you.
>
> Don Corathers
>
> =20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Tim Strzechowski=20
> To: Pynchon-L=20
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:48 PM
> Subject: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
>
> . . . continuing:
>
>
> Furthermore, the narrative consciousness peeks out at the reader at =
> various points in the writing. For example:
>
> "Oh, I know there's some heavy-duty hombres, badasses, spend all day =
> narrowly escaping death by tree, not too much patience with anything out =
> of the ordinary, but I've got the element of surprise. Don't I?"
>
> "You'll see," weary Slide advised.
>
> He sure would, but only after ... (p. 5)
>
> Additionally:
>
> "It was well into lunchtime when he got to the Log Jam, and he was =
> disappointed to find nobody at all from the media, just a collection of =
> upscale machinery parked in the lot, itself newly blacktopped. These =
> were the first of several rude updates" (ibid).
>
> With statements like "He sure would" and "These were the first of =
> several rude updates," the narrative consciousness is laying the =
> groundwork for the reader's making a discovery of some import later in =
> the narrative, a discovery that seems at the moment to be outside the =
> realization of Zoyd himself (at least for the moment). How does the =
> narrative consciousness know this? At what point does this story cease =
> to be a story in and of itself, and become a story as told sporadically =
> from an omniscience? Since the "rude updates" are eventually learned by =
> Zoyd and the reader, one may surmise that this omniscience is to be =
> trusted. Reality, in essence, is being manipulated to the extent that =
> the reader is being given specific details a little at a time by both =
> the characters in the narrative structure *and* the omniscience that =
> permeates that narrative.
>
> Are there additional ways in which each/both author(s) examine the =
> nature of reality in this work?
>
> Is this a major theme for the work as a whole? Is this specific to =
> this work as a piece of Postmodernist fiction?
>
> Are there differences in the ways each author incorporates this theme =
> into his work? Are there similarities?
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: 17 Jul 2003 01:13:33 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 23:05, Don Corathers wrote:
> > Tim and Jasper were talking about narrative voice and authority this
> > morning, and it set me thinking about an aspect of Kinbote's narrative
point
> > of view that I don't think we've touched on yet, that has some bearing
on
> > the question of who is responsible for the commentary. From the
beginning of
> > the foreword to the last page of the commentary, Kinbote speaks to us
pretty
> > consistently in the same first-person voice. Whacked, but consistent.
>
>
> He does slip briefly into a second person voice (singular or plural?) in
> the second sentence of the second paragraph of the foreword.
>
> "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto Three,
> are identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
>
> Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
> survival of Hazel.
>
> He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the immediately
> following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility.
> Why might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
>
> But, now, on with Don's speculation about Gradus . . . .
>
>
>
>
> >
> > *Except* when he's describing Gradus's progress from Zembla across
Europe to
> > New York and on to New Wye. Those sections are written in a jarringly
> > omniscient third person, profoundly different from the rest of Kinbote's
> > text. In them we are given a great deal of detail that could only have
come
> > from somebody who was present. We're told what people were wearing and
given
> > extended quotes of conversations and direct observations about what the
> > weather was like, what the air smelled like, the "blinding blue of the
sea"
> > at Nice, all this in spite of the fact that Gradus is "exceptionally
> > unobservant." More than that, we are inside Gradus's consciousness. We
know
> > what he had to eat and how it affected his digestive processes, how he
was
> > feeling, what he was thinking, why he was infuriated by the instruction
to
> > amuse himself in the South of France.
> >
> > Now, Kinbote tells us he had an interview (or was it two?) with Gradus
when
> > the killer was in custody after the murder, and the implication is that
he
> > captured all of this narrative detail in that meeting. I don't believe
it.
> >
> > But I'm not sure where that leads. Seems to me there are three
> > possibilities:
> >
> > 1. The writer of the commentary was present. That is, Kinbote was
describing
> > first-person experiences, but shifted the narrative to the third person.
> > Kinbote = Gradus. Problematical, yes (but what about this puzzle isn't?)
> > because if we accept Kinbote's calendar, he was with Shade in New Wye
when
> > Gradus was traveling from Zembla.
> >
> > 2. Kinbote (or somebody posing as Kinbote) made the whole thing up. This
> > seems to be the default explanation for everything that cannot otherwise
be
> > sorted out in this novel. Not as much fun as some of the other
> > possibilities.
> >
> > 3. The wild card, Gerald Emerald, is somehow in play. He is present in
at
> > least three of Gradus's traveling episodes.
> >
> > I expect we'll be returning to this question in the coming weeks.
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps
> > > we are conditioned to suspect the 1st person voice, reduce it
immediately
> > to
> > > opinion and limited perspective, while the 3rd person voice has that
> > > compelling pretension to omniscience. Does this trust in a 3rd person
> > voice
> > > imply our susceptibility to control by others? If so, with a missed
> > > communication, I think in a 3rd person narrative we are less
suspicious of
> > > the *origin* of the message. When told by the god-narrator that it
> > exists,
> > > then we assume that yes, it must exist. If Pynchon is concerned with
> > > methods of control, then why assume in his narrative voice one such
> > method?
> > > Or does he work consciously to undermine that voice?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Date: 17 Jul 2003 01:26:52 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: pie ala Maud, Celine's Version
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 01:02, Bandwraith@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/16/2003 10:43:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > fqmorris@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Fish and shit here. Maybe that's the golden paste?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > caviar. chocolate cookies. Kinbote in drag.
>
> No mention of the sweet taste of honey, however.
>
> Honey is the epitome of sweet. Hard to ignore sweet. (but so would sour,
> bitter, salty be hard to ignore if one is in a smelling rather than
> tasting mode)
>
> but anyway . . .
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3421
> ********************************
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3421
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:08:34 -0400
> From: "Don Corathers" <gumbo@fuse.net>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
>
> I don't think two novels could be much different in terms of narrative =
> reliability.
>
> In Pale Fire we are completely at sea. Each word in the book might have =
> been written, edited, planted, manipulated, colored or at least shaded =
> by any one of (at least) three candidate narrators. Trust no one.
>
> The correspondence between authority and author is right around a =
> hundred percent in Vineland, imo. The narrator is omniscient but just a =
> little choosy about what he wants to reveal, and when to reveal it. =
> Sometimes, as in "He sure would," it suits his purposes to let us know =
> what's *going* to happen. Whatever he says, he's not shitting you.
>
> Don Corathers
>
> =20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Tim Strzechowski=20
> To: Pynchon-L=20
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:48 PM
> Subject: VLVL2 and NPPF: The Nature of Reality (part 2)
>
>
> . . . continuing:
>
>
> Furthermore, the narrative consciousness peeks out at the reader at =
> various points in the writing. For example:
>
> "Oh, I know there's some heavy-duty hombres, badasses, spend all day =
> narrowly escaping death by tree, not too much patience with anything out =
> of the ordinary, but I've got the element of surprise. Don't I?"
>
> "You'll see," weary Slide advised.
>
> He sure would, but only after ... (p. 5)
>
> Additionally:
>
> "It was well into lunchtime when he got to the Log Jam, and he was =
> disappointed to find nobody at all from the media, just a collection of =
> upscale machinery parked in the lot, itself newly blacktopped. These =
> were the first of several rude updates" (ibid).
>
> With statements like "He sure would" and "These were the first of =
> several rude updates," the narrative consciousness is laying the =
> groundwork for the reader's making a discovery of some import later in =
> the narrative, a discovery that seems at the moment to be outside the =
> realization of Zoyd himself (at least for the moment). How does the =
> narrative consciousness know this? At what point does this story cease =
> to be a story in and of itself, and become a story as told sporadically =
> from an omniscience? Since the "rude updates" are eventually learned by =
> Zoyd and the reader, one may surmise that this omniscience is to be =
> trusted. Reality, in essence, is being manipulated to the extent that =
> the reader is being given specific details a little at a time by both =
> the characters in the narrative structure *and* the omniscience that =
> permeates that narrative.
>
> Are there additional ways in which each/both author(s) examine the =
> nature of reality in this work?
>
> Is this a major theme for the work as a whole? Is this specific to =
> this work as a piece of Postmodernist fiction?
>
> Are there differences in the ways each author incorporates this theme =
> into his work? Are there similarities?
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: 17 Jul 2003 01:13:33 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: Who's watching Gradus?
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 23:05, Don Corathers wrote:
> > Tim and Jasper were talking about narrative voice and authority this
> > morning, and it set me thinking about an aspect of Kinbote's narrative
point
> > of view that I don't think we've touched on yet, that has some bearing
on
> > the question of who is responsible for the commentary. From the
beginning of
> > the foreword to the last page of the commentary, Kinbote speaks to us
pretty
> > consistently in the same first-person voice. Whacked, but consistent.
>
>
> He does slip briefly into a second person voice (singular or plural?) in
> the second sentence of the second paragraph of the foreword.
>
> "Canto Two, your favorite, and that shocking tour de force, Canto Three,
> are identical in length (334 lines) and cover twenty-seven cards each."
>
> Who is "you?" Canto Two is mainly about Shade's speculation on the
> possibility of survival after death with particular emphasis on the
> survival of Hazel.
>
> He can't likely be addressing the dead Shade, because in the immediately
> following sentence "his death" is referred to. Hazel is a possibility.
> Why might Kinbote want speak or pretend to speak to Hazel?
>
> But, now, on with Don's speculation about Gradus . . . .
>
>
>
>
> >
> > *Except* when he's describing Gradus's progress from Zembla across
Europe to
> > New York and on to New Wye. Those sections are written in a jarringly
> > omniscient third person, profoundly different from the rest of Kinbote's
> > text. In them we are given a great deal of detail that could only have
come
> > from somebody who was present. We're told what people were wearing and
given
> > extended quotes of conversations and direct observations about what the
> > weather was like, what the air smelled like, the "blinding blue of the
sea"
> > at Nice, all this in spite of the fact that Gradus is "exceptionally
> > unobservant." More than that, we are inside Gradus's consciousness. We
know
> > what he had to eat and how it affected his digestive processes, how he
was
> > feeling, what he was thinking, why he was infuriated by the instruction
to
> > amuse himself in the South of France.
> >
> > Now, Kinbote tells us he had an interview (or was it two?) with Gradus
when
> > the killer was in custody after the murder, and the implication is that
he
> > captured all of this narrative detail in that meeting. I don't believe
it.
> >
> > But I'm not sure where that leads. Seems to me there are three
> > possibilities:
> >
> > 1. The writer of the commentary was present. That is, Kinbote was
describing
> > first-person experiences, but shifted the narrative to the third person.
> > Kinbote = Gradus. Problematical, yes (but what about this puzzle isn't?)
> > because if we accept Kinbote's calendar, he was with Shade in New Wye
when
> > Gradus was traveling from Zembla.
> >
> > 2. Kinbote (or somebody posing as Kinbote) made the whole thing up. This
> > seems to be the default explanation for everything that cannot otherwise
be
> > sorted out in this novel. Not as much fun as some of the other
> > possibilities.
> >
> > 3. The wild card, Gerald Emerald, is somehow in play. He is present in
at
> > least three of Gradus's traveling episodes.
> >
> > I expect we'll be returning to this question in the coming weeks.
> >
> > Don Corathers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps
> > > we are conditioned to suspect the 1st person voice, reduce it
immediately
> > to
> > > opinion and limited perspective, while the 3rd person voice has that
> > > compelling pretension to omniscience. Does this trust in a 3rd person
> > voice
> > > imply our susceptibility to control by others? If so, with a missed
> > > communication, I think in a 3rd person narrative we are less
suspicious of
> > > the *origin* of the message. When told by the god-narrator that it
> > exists,
> > > then we assume that yes, it must exist. If Pynchon is concerned with
> > > methods of control, then why assume in his narrative voice one such
> > method?
> > > Or does he work consciously to undermine that voice?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Date: 17 Jul 2003 01:26:52 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF: pie ala Maud, Celine's Version
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 01:02, Bandwraith@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/16/2003 10:43:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > fqmorris@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Fish and shit here. Maybe that's the golden paste?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > caviar. chocolate cookies. Kinbote in drag.
>
> No mention of the sweet taste of honey, however.
>
> Honey is the epitome of sweet. Hard to ignore sweet. (but so would sour,
> bitter, salty be hard to ignore if one is in a smelling rather than
> tasting mode)
>
> but anyway . . .
>
> P.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3421
> ********************************
>