Accurate vs Recognizable

[Andrew Dinn]

Scott,

A quibble but...

> As to the issue of whether TP's representation of historical sites like
> London (or Venice or NY, for that matter) are realistic and historically
> accurate ....

[deletia]

> ... In other words,
> isn't what he's shooting for a recognizable "trope" of such places, that
> his readers connect with not because they've been there and paced out
> the streets and cafes, but because it "sounds" true?  This would be 
> consistent with a theme in all his works of history as constructed from
> what people need/desire it to be; and in fact the unauthenticity of
> many forms of popular representation of people and places is another
> frequent theme in his works.

I think he is digging deeper than that. It's not just that popular or
even scholarly representation is often unauthentic. I think he is
trying to argue two further corollaries to this line of thought.

i) in many cases popular or scholarly representation of history (or
any other aspect of `reality') *is* the determinant of what
happened (respectively, is).

ii) where there is confusion about what happened (is) it's not usually
a case of there being two accounts but nobody knows which is
correct. Its more often a case of there being no accepted means of
giving an account of what happened (respectively, is), the real
problem being one of definition, not knowledge. By `definition' here I
do not mean trading words for words, I mean the means by which a
community establishes and maintains their history (respectively,
reality).

I actually think elucidating point ii) is Pynchon's main concern in
Gravity's Rainbow i) is merely the most common answer to the question
how do we know X happened (respectively, exists) i.e. these things lie
in the hands (actions) of a community. Where community disappears so
does reality and history leaving the individual naked with no
identity.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all