Going Backstage, Breaking the Fourth Wall
Sorry about the incoming text wall... I'm just really into this chapter.
There's a lot that happens in Chapter Three. There's no question about that. And, at first, it's undeniably difficult to slog through the mess that is The Courier's Tragedy. A good handful of new names are thrown at you, it's hard to keep track of the events in the play, and, as if you were there, the narrator makes sure you experience every little detail alongside Oedipa. However, I believe the play itself, like Hamlet's play within a play, is some sort of analogy or method of foreshadowing regarding the story itself.
Angelo is an overly sexual, controlling figure, who reminds me a bit too much of Metzger in Ch. 2.
Considering the mentions of underground, secret semi-political, semi-religious organizations (cults?) in Yoyodyne and postal fraud, I'm suspicious about the coup mentioned. I'm unsure about who Faggio may represent, but if anyone has the power to do so, it may be Di Presso and his connection to "the family" (hinting he's in cahoots with the Mafia). And Niccolo who was supposedly killed and, at the end of Chapter 4, it's heavily hinted that those who we believe are dead may not really be dead. Therefore, is Niccolo representative of Pierce?
"Don't drag me into your scholarly disputes," adding "whoever you all are," with a familiar smile.
Pynchon makes fun of us for attempting to academically analyze his work, and the "whoever you all are" and "familiar" is very much so directed at us.
"Was it written in as a stage direction? All those people, so obviously in on something. Or was that one of your touches?"
Oedipa asks this of Driblette, aware that he knows the play inside and out. "All those people, so obviously in on something" is exactly her situation right now. We (the readers and Oedipa) are kept in the dark whereas it's obvious that, with the thick web of connections spanning between everyone and everything else, Metzger, Di Presso, Mucho, Cohen, Koteks, Thoth, etc. are familiar with the context and have information that Oedipa doesn't have access to.
"You could fall in love with me, you can talk to my shrink, you can hide a tape recorder in my bedroom, see what I talk about from wherever I am when I sleep. You want to do that? You can put together clues, develop a thesis, or several, about why characters reacted to the Trystero possibility the way they did, why the assassins came on, why the black costumes. You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth."
And here's Driblette's real nail in the coffin. Never did I plan on relating to Oedipa while reading this book, but I can't help but do so now.
There's a lot that happens in Chapter Three. There's no question about that. And, at first, it's undeniably difficult to slog through the mess that is The Courier's Tragedy. A good handful of new names are thrown at you, it's hard to keep track of the events in the play, and, as if you were there, the narrator makes sure you experience every little detail alongside Oedipa. However, I believe the play itself, like Hamlet's play within a play, is some sort of analogy or method of foreshadowing regarding the story itself.
Angelo is an overly sexual, controlling figure, who reminds me a bit too much of Metzger in Ch. 2.
"He [Angelo] has begun feeling his sister [Francesca] up and nibbling at her neck; the dialogue modulates into the fevered figures of intemperate desire, and the scene ends with the couple collapsing onto a divan."
Ch. 3, Page 51
And there are other characters who I believe are representative of other characters in the story.
"Act IV of The Courier's Tragedy discloses evil Duke Angelo in a state of nervous frenzy. He has leaned about the coup in Faggio, the possibility that Niccolo may be alive somewhere after all." ... "Angelo takes out a quill, parchment and ink, explaining to the audience but not to the good guys who are still ignorant of recent developments..."
Ch. 3, Page 53-54
Considering the mentions of underground, secret semi-political, semi-religious organizations (cults?) in Yoyodyne and postal fraud, I'm suspicious about the coup mentioned. I'm unsure about who Faggio may represent, but if anyone has the power to do so, it may be Di Presso and his connection to "the family" (hinting he's in cahoots with the Mafia). And Niccolo who was supposedly killed and, at the end of Chapter 4, it's heavily hinted that those who we believe are dead may not really be dead. Therefore, is Niccolo representative of Pierce?
"As if the dead really do persist, even in a bottle of wine."
Ch. 4, Page 79
In addition, once Oedipa goes backstage, she finds Driblette. I can't help but read Driblette as a character in which Pynchon uses to speak directly to us (Oedipa). There's a lot of lines that I believe hint him being an "insider", besides having a full script and being in charge of the play itself.
Here are a few examples of what I believe are loaded lines: (From Ch. 3 Pages 60-63)
"They [his eyes] were bright black, surrounded by an incredible network of lines, like a laboratory maze for studying intelligence in tears. They seemed to know what she wanted, even if she didn't."
As an author, he knows what he has in store for his characters - something the characters don't even know about themselves.
"You came to talk about the play," he said. "Let me discourage you. It was written to entertain people... It isn't literature, it doesn't mean anything."
He scolds us for trying to over-analyze the book, claiming all of it's coincidences (ha) are just for entertainment purposes only.
"Why," Driblette said at last, "is everybody so interested in texts?"
Pynchon is infamous (at least to my best knowledge) for rejecting interview requests. Driblette is probably also tired of people (like Oedipa, like us) asking about the deeper meaning behind it.
"Don't drag me into your scholarly disputes," adding "whoever you all are," with a familiar smile.
Pynchon makes fun of us for attempting to academically analyze his work, and the "whoever you all are" and "familiar" is very much so directed at us.
"Was it written in as a stage direction? All those people, so obviously in on something. Or was that one of your touches?"
Oedipa asks this of Driblette, aware that he knows the play inside and out. "All those people, so obviously in on something" is exactly her situation right now. We (the readers and Oedipa) are kept in the dark whereas it's obvious that, with the thick web of connections spanning between everyone and everything else, Metzger, Di Presso, Mucho, Cohen, Koteks, Thoth, etc. are familiar with the context and have information that Oedipa doesn't have access to.
"You could fall in love with me, you can talk to my shrink, you can hide a tape recorder in my bedroom, see what I talk about from wherever I am when I sleep. You want to do that? You can put together clues, develop a thesis, or several, about why characters reacted to the Trystero possibility the way they did, why the assassins came on, why the black costumes. You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth."
And here's Driblette's real nail in the coffin. Never did I plan on relating to Oedipa while reading this book, but I can't help but do so now.
Comments
Post a Comment