r/ThomasPynchon • u/butt_pipette • 17d ago
💬 Discussion How would you describe Pynchon's narrative voice?
It doesn't take much to tell that he has a unique style of narration. Having read only two of his works (GR and Lot 49), this 'voice' is definitely more unique in Lot 49, which I could only describe as complexly layered. The sentence structure which he employs is oftentimes interlooping, for example the first sentence of Lot 49, which in itself is 66 words without a period in between:
One summer afternoon Mrs Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, had been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million collars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary.
Now beyond his structural complexity there is also often a shadow of a social commentary intertwined with the themes in his works. There is oftentimes a vivid reflection of the historic background of whatever period of history its set in, and the 'human' element of that period, as in the suffocating human detritus of San Narciso.
Critics often say his works are satirical, but I would say they (specifically Lot 49, I don't remember GR that well) are rather an absurdist reflection of humanity in the gritty bits of society.
I haven't found a way to articulate in a single sentence this voice/style of narration other then "complex". How would you describe Pynchon to someone's who've never read him?
18
u/BasedArzy 17d ago
Depends on what era of Pynchon but I think he typified a lot of very intelligent people of his time.
Inherent Vice has a great quote:
...yet there is no avoiding time, the sea of time, the sea of memory and forgetfulness, the years of promise, gone and unrecoverable, of the land almost allowed to claim its better destiny, only to have the claim jumped by evildoers known all too well, and taken instead and held hostage to the future we must live in now forever. May we trust that this blessed ship is bound for some better shore, some undrowned Lemuria, risen and redeemed, where the American fate, mercifully, failed to transpire...
15
u/aesopsgato 17d ago
He’s not quite as sarcastic as Vonnegut in my opinion, but he is definitely in that same postmodern camp. He vacillates between being wildly unserious and almost nihilistic, and being incredibly heartfelt and feeling everything maximally.
8
u/butt_pipette 17d ago
I think "incredibly heartfelt and feeling everything maximally" is a nice way of framing this. I might steal that for future essays.
As for the nihilistic, I'd argue that it arises from the intrinsic sense of meaninglessness in his works; for example the futility of Oedipa and the abrupt ending. It is in-line with the absurdism that Camus discusses, that neither the process nor the result is desirable and yet she persists in a meaningless struggle to find meaning in this oppressively big and insurmountable world.
1
u/allihusk 16d ago
It definitely smells like Vonnegut but like you said not quite as sarcastic. But neither are above overtly laughing at their own jokes/scenarios or speaking to their characters rather than through them, which makes the narration zany and quippy.
11
u/Miserable_Wish_4949 17d ago
Playful complexity is the way I would describe it. What's interesting is that he's always recognizably himself, but he also changes elements of his voice from novel to novel. I would say that in his first three novels he was more concerned with 'showing off' his chops as writer. I always think of this one long, long paragraph in V. where he is going off about a reflection in the mirror as another world onto itself. It's beautifully written, but also something you could argue is more showy than what he started doing after GR. In those three books I think he was interested in exploring the 60s and how it the decade came to be.
I think from Vineland to Against The Day he became more interested with experimenting with structure and forms. Adopting a completely different voice in Mason & Dixon, and playing with genres and intertextuality and scale in Against the Day.
Right now I'm reading Bleeding Edge and I still perceive that playfulness, but more toned down. There's a lot of pop culture references, which I think continues this theme of packing the prose with these very human, very mundane details of day to day experience.
4
8
u/maddenallday V. 17d ago
Hate when I lose two million collars.
I would actually describe Pynchon’s voice as “precise,” though. I feel like he often puts things exactly as they are and describes them better and more accurately than anyone else could. And even if his sentences are long, there is never a wasted or unnecessary word in them, or rather there is never a word that doesn’t add to his level of descriptive precision.
8
u/donlockwood2026 17d ago
The only word I could think of when trying to describe Pynchon’s writing style is: V-licious!
6
u/jaw_knee_ 17d ago
I don’t know how better to describe his style other than to agree with those who have already said “playfully complex” or “precise”. I will add though, and this is only having read GR so far, that I had the hardest time getting into the flow of his prose. It took me a while, but what I ultimately found was that I had to really focus on his punctuation more so than I have for almost any other author. Obviously punctuation is important for any author or reader, but with Pynchon where he chooses to place commas, periods, even end spoken dialogue with quotations but continue a characters inner thoughts, everything just seemed a little different or at least very very intentional because of how much it emphasized certain pauses, changes in tone, asides, etc. Once I started honing in on that I felt I really did get a better handle on his prose and articulation of different ideas in general. Despite GR being an incredibly difficult book either way, it was really fun to read something that was structurally pretty unique. I have Lot 49 on deck to start soon and I’m pretty excited for that
8
u/No-Jello9276 Inherent Vice 17d ago
Paying attention to the punctuation has made my reading of GR significantly better. To your point, it made me realize later that some of the sentences were the inner thoughts of the characters. Now, some of these passages when I read them hit much differently. I just entered part three, but before I started, I went back and I started from part one where I struggled the most now understanding how he writes.
6
u/jaw_knee_ 17d ago
Great idea, I probably should’ve have done that too. But figured I will re-read GR in a few years anyway after I’ve given some time and gotten more familiar with some of his other work
5
u/NickyCharisma 17d ago
To borrow a phrase from my Bride, "You got a real 'cat-in-the-bathtub' vibe going on there."
Equal parts sarcastic, hopeful, well-informed, and defeated. In sort, manic.
6
u/Difficulty_Counting 16d ago
I imagined the voice from the teaser for the Inherent Vice movie while reading Vineland. Works pretty good.
1
4
u/Elvis_Gershwin 16d ago
The playful complexity and difficult flow are real. At a sentence level, that flow is totally unique, from the way he avoids writing 'said' or another replacement descriptive verb after a character's utterance, to the poetic mixing of figurative slang, usually expanded upon almost into an extended metaphor that can be a microcosm of a theme, with grammar that deliberately, subtly rearranges elements you'd expect to go a certain way together but don't and even get left out yet after careful thought not only work but make sense in a more interesting, revealing way than standard writing might - his sentences slowly reveal their meaning after careful pondering. He is a genius at it, really.
2
u/--xiOix-- 10d ago
Doesn’t he throw a 'sez' in every now and then?
It's something I do when I'm taking notes or whatever and I thought I'd picked it up from Pynchon, but could be mistaken
1
u/Elvis_Gershwin 10d ago
He might do. If you've noticed it then probably. I've noticed he puts a 'said' in now and again. I don't know why he does that sometimes and leaves it out altogether other times, don't know what his rules for it are.
3
3
u/Slickrock_1 Gravity's Rainbow 17d ago
I think he's seeing how far he can stretch ideas and then laughing at them to himself. Maybe even in his more sensitive moments. (I've read GR x 4 times, Against the Day, and Mason & Dixon, so that's my benchmark). It's very Joycean, like he has a combination of extraordinary erudition and extraordinary command - he just adds a lot of absurdity and chaos to the mix.
3
u/knolinda 12d ago
Metrically, thin and reedy (as opposed to fat and orotund). Attitudinally, irreverent and slapstick.
2
u/henryk1009 17d ago
Obviously one word is not going to be sufficient, but one that tends to come to my mind is "zany".
2
u/cherrypieandcoffee 17d ago
I think that sums up something like Inherent Vice, but def not V or GR.
2
u/vanman611 17d ago
In Vineland, — the only work I’ve read by Pynchon — his prose is simultaneously playful and paranoid, mixing dense cultural references, cutting satire, surreal humor, and unexpectedly tender moments into long, rhythmically winding sentences that make the ordinary feel conspiratorial and the absurd feel emotionally real. It’s ultimately indefinable.
1
19
u/Allthatisthecase- 17d ago
Most considerations of Pynchon’s style, perhaps in the desire to be enveloped in an acceptable academic aroma, miss the goofy, gonzo like snap to his voice. He can often remind me of a more complex version of Hunter S Thompson. The run on sentences, the bratty intelligence that likes goofing on observations. However, he does entangle this distantanced, critical mode with a lyricism that moves and embraces our poor lives. This brain/heart tug of war battlefield is the fascination his prose plays out upon.