First off, I reread what I had posted on Lot 49 in the light of beginning a book I took out of the library called "The Fictional Labyrinths of Thomas Pynchon" by David Seed, I think from the early 80s, which has essays on his first 3 novels, and on Slow Learner. Not that I "dislike" what I wrote for Lot 49 per se, but my inability to craft any sort of thesis out of my notes is something I don't want to replicate as we go through GR, especially with the amount of secondary material that I'm learning is out there. I found an article called "Probing a Post-Romantic Paleontology" by Joel D. Black, which I think is really relevant to what you were referring to, those consequences of German Romanticism, etc. I'm only about halfway through it, so I'll withhold making assumptions as to how it wraps up, but those 2 sources, along with a book I've got coming from the Staten Island library by Kathryn Hume (I can't remember the title; something about mythologies) should really help.
I had hoped to be all the way through Beyond the Zero by this post, but that off-day threw off my schedule. I'll stop whining here.
Okay, so I'm aware it would be fairly redundant to say that I observed an abundance of opposites, of ideas of opposites, binaries, etc. It's explicitly stated in the novel in more than half of the sections (should I call them sections?) that I've thus read. But I can't help being really interested in the character of Pointsman, maybe Pointsman v. Blicero, but as of right now, I've only really encountered that initial tale of Blicero-via-Katje @ Grigori's tank so far, so I guess I'll hold off. But I'm watching for that. I can't tell if it's Pointsman, or if it's only his science, or if those are even distinguishable from each other, but everytime he appears, I get the distinct feeling I'm watching some archetypal b&w villain plotting against the hero, actually almost of Boris Badenov plotting against Bullwinkle (Slothrop fits the Bullwinkle mold pretty well).
Pointsman claims to want to find a "pure physiological basis for the life of the psyche," "no effect without cause," the so-called "true mechanical explanation." (90) Blicero considers a really similar thing when he fantasizes about being able to say "it's muscular," "just...the reflexes," in his Oven-dream. Their obsessions are linked again: Pointsman scolds Mexico for using the term "strikes off" as opposed to "regresses," ("there is only forward -- into it -- or backward" - the binary) and Blicero must envision Gottfried as a negative image of Enzian, even going so far as to fashion an imaginary and invisible Herero girl to be the anti-Katje, because nothing can exist in isolation; the anti-it must exist, binaries again. Also, Pointsman seems to me to be character most explicitly tied to the notion of going beyond the zero, in his discussion of the ultraparadoxical stage.
Apart from these personal interests, I thought a little about how you said Pynchon may be displaying a bit of preference for the analog over the digital, which totally confused me for a while, but after a conversation with a friend majoring in computer science, who was able to explain "analog" to me in terms dumber than even the Wikipedia introduction, I think I may be approaching comprehension. Pirate, contemplating Teddy Bloat's espionage/secret folder, suggests that maybe it really is just a few dirty pictures, which would be "more wholesome than anything this war's photographed...life, at least." (35) This led to me thinking about all the sex, all the vulgarities and obscenities and freakshows in Pynchon's writing, and it all might be tied to this idea of "life at least," perhaps a fear of the great push from the analog (systems/entities that reflect the shape of their subjects) toward the digital (endless translation, detachment from the thing being computed/understood, zeros and ones), tracing the move to its apparent conception in WW2.
And Mexico's Poisson chart *slash* Slothrop's map which leads to Mexico's fear of the Postwar generation and their unconnected "events" (no cause and effect) *slash* the reminder that ancient Romans used a sieve that resembled the chart/map to cure illnesses, do magic things, etc. I can't help but think that this illustrates something central to the novel, the implication/temptation of a mystical power in constellations, imposed patterns, shapes in chaos, but accepting the chaos nonetheless. There is something "analog" about the chart and the map, as opposed perhaps to the "digital"ness of the War (there are no battles, no one "fights" the war as we'd imagine they should, they receive it in transmission-form, translated into a host of war-languages).
I don't think any of this is meant to be all that subterranean. I'm not claiming to have found and opened some mythic ark within the book, and I also don't want to get ahead of myself. I think once again, I'll supplement this post sometime this week as I finish Beyond the Zero (and hopefully an essay or two) before Friday's treatment of Part 2.
Any avenues you'd like me to address that I've ignored, &-so-on, &-so-on, etc?
Matt
That's a nice start in Big Book-land. I agree that there's an anti-digital/binary structure in the book, or at least an almost articulated resistance to certain kinds of scientific, mathematical impositions of symbolic order onto the messyness of "life itself." I also agree that's what motivates the violence, slapstick, & pornographic elements of the novel. Maybe the cheesy songs too.
ReplyDeleteIt does make me think about some other traditional novel stories, too, esp the love plot (Roger & Jessica's love plot has always seemed to me the "best" love story old Tom ever wrote). If the idea is to resist machines & mechanization (including the rocket), what's wrong with love stories? I still think, as we discussed with "crying," that Pynchon sees something wrong with sentimental novels also.
Another possible angle for you: the original title of the novel, supposedly, was "Mindless Pleasures."
One last thing -- don't be too hard on yourself if you don't arrive at a full thesis at this point in the semester. There's still plenty of time. Esp in complicated novels that are in part about falling into confusion -- in Pynchon I think the reader is taught to prefer confusion to perfect clarity, even to think that a certain level of confusion is a positive good -- it's fine to not come into each post (or class or whatever) with perfect clarity. You're working well with these novels. Don't worry, or apologize so much.
I would like to see some more extended close reading. Pick out a sentence or a page & unpack the syntax, vocabulary, style, pacing, etc. That's where the fun stuff is.
I thought this was weird:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pointsman.com