"Real Subversive Lit."?

[Adrian Kelly]

   I too liked Andrew's post, and Don Larsson's equally helpful
response, but I wonder if Andrew might expand upon/clarify his
assertion that V. constitutes "real subversive literature".  I think
that in its time V. was an extraordinarily original novel (and a
remarkable first novel too), but lately I've been asking myself if in
fact Pynchon has 'periodized' his earlier novels with the publication of
Vineland, which, I'm sorry to say,contrary to all of the admirable posts
that have lauded and defended that text, is such a formally and politcally
'lazy' novel, a text which somehow seems to gesture at it's own
inevitable commodified dispersal to     remainder tables across the land.
In any case, there are novels contemporary with and prior to V. that are
 just as if not more formally experimental than V. and they too have
been absorbed by institutional curriculae the voraciousness of which
don't allow much time or space for real novelty or subversiveness.  But
maybe I'm just a cynic who's sick of university.  In what sense, Andrew/Don/
anyone else/ do you really think that V. remains "subversive" rather than,
say, 'a sixties novel'.  For example, are the text's sexual politics
still 'subversive' in the wake of the excoriations of the sort of Marcusian-
brand of politics which seems to influence V.?        (Personally, I still
like Marcuse as much as I will always like Pynchon, I'm just wondering
what you think since your post was so compelling.)
Adrian