TRP Themes

[Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt]

> At 10:41 PM 2/28/96 +0200, Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt wrote:
> >I disagree. The "overarching theme in Pynchon", if any, and as it touches 
> >on thermodynamic Entropy, is the _critique_ of a culture (or the entire 
> >human race as it is today) which uses Entropy as central "overarching" 
> >metaphor. For TRP, Entropy actually (actually? _actually_!) is of no 
> >importance whatsoever.

Al: 
> I'm intrigued, but I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  Could you
> give some examples of this?

On the individual, th/entropy has no effect. But even if you make a few 
conceptual/metaphorical leaps and equate death with entropy, should 
that mean that death/entropy should define the life which precedes it? 
Just because death comes at the end of life does _not_ mean it _causes_ 
life, does it? In our linear cultural world, the process of assembling a 
chair causes the chair to exist. Before the assembly begins, the 
chair exists as an idea or a plan or an 'essence'* in our minds. This is how 
technology works. If we transpose this model on our life directly, 
simplistically and incorrectly, as I think our culture has done, then
death exists as the overiding 'essence' (or operating dynamic, or 
overiding metaphor) within our collective minds. IMO this is what 
They exploit, and what TRP critiques. The 'meaning of life' (if you 
will) is not determined in such alinear fashion, it is not determined 
by what we produce for king and country, by our function, by our 
eventual death as most ideologies and religions assume, but rather 
by "love, dreams, the spirit, the senses and the other second-class trivia 
that are found among the idle and mindless hours of the day... " (GR, 177).
* in the Existentialist sense

> I have difficulty with using entropy as THE theme in Pynchon's work too, but
> for other reasons.  As much as the novels are about loss of order, and loss
> of control, it seems they are also very much about convergence, and bringing
> things full circle. 

Loss of order and control for TRP is mostly a positive thing, since it 
implies a break with Their assembly-line mind-set, which is 
ultimately based on the model of cause = death, effect = life, which 
is not even scientifically correct since it implies a time reversal - 
which is impossible anyway as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (yes, the 
entropy one) teaches us. (Thus it isn't science which is 'bad'. but 
their pseudo-scientific misuse and misapplication of it, a la Pavlov 
in GR)

>               Only COL49 left me at the end with a sense of chaotic
> upheaval.  The others were very carefully resolved, even more so perhaps
> than your average novel.  Comments?

I would say COL49 is 'carelessly' resolved, although I hesitate to 
use a term which might imply notions of traditional closure. 
Although I loved it, I would concur somewhat with TRP's own opinion 
of COL49. I often think he should go back to it and use it as a 
starting point for a much bigger, GR-like novel, as he did for V. 
Maybe that's next?

hg
hag at iafrica.com