Stats

[Andrew Dinn]

The Veg wrote:

>    Is _Vineland_ not considered his work?  I have been wondering
>    why it is I don't feel like reading it.  What is it about this
>    book?  It seems to ooze invisibility and triviality.  Someone
>    please tell me this isn't so and that I should waste no time
>    reading.  (After I finish the last 100 pages of GR,  and then
>    read it through again,  that is.)

It isn't so. You will waste no time by reading it. Or rather you will
probably spend the time less well reading some other author. It is
still a Pynchon book even if it is not another `Gravity's Rainbow' (if
it is any help, you might also reflect that `Vineland' is also neither
a Unicorn nor a square circle).

Greg Montalbano replied:

> I've never been quite certain WHY, but I have noticed in the
> postings to this list a certain attitude of contempt or dismissal
> towards VINELAND.

I think mostly the problem was one of expectation, especially as the
years piled up. GR reeks of library sweat and toil in a way that
`Vineland' does not, mostly because GR is rooted in a more
intellectually `credible' culture, mythology and history than
`Vineland' (I could maybe just argue it is rooted in Europe and/or the
US of European tradition). This makes it appear more dense,
all-encompassing, treasure-laden, allusive etc.

`Vineland' *necessarily* appears trivial, disconnected from `deep and
meaningful concerns' because its target is exactly this dissociation.
Sure Pynchon could have adopted a comparative stance, critiquing
modern-day US from the outside, from a European (or other) cultural
perspective. But he did that already - the book's called `Gravity's
Rainbow'. In `Vineland' he chose to portray modern USA from within, on
its own terms. Rather like `The Crying of Lot 49' - and maybe there is
some mileage in how `V.' stands in the same relation to GR. If one
stops trying to compare `Vineland' to GR and starts looking at how it
addresses its own concerns I think he does a damn fine job.


> I enjoyed the book on several levels, through several readings
> (although not as many as V or GR); this leads to musings as to
> possible reasons for the general lack of enthusiasm on the part of
> the listees:

> -- VINELAND is a more "concrete" book than the others; there are
> fewer levels, less mysticism & not as many spaces to be filled in by
> the reader.  Judging by the expressed preferences of the folks on
> this list, that could be taken as a negative quality.

I don't know. There is a lot of mysticism and lots of stuff
unexplained. What about all the Indian references? What on earth are
all those thanatoids supposed to be? What mythology do Frenesi, the
Virgin Prairie, Brock Vond and Zoyd belong to? (e.g. account for Blood
and Vato dragging Brock down into hell). Where did the giant Japanese
monster footprint come from? In fact where did the all the Japanese
stuff fit in?

In GR the unexplained stuff is unexplained in a different way. There
are lots of references to real history, documented mythology. The
problem is not recognising what the symbols stand for, what system of
meaning they belong to but rather how to tie them into a coherent
plot; because of course there is no plot, only peripheral,
edge-of-vision, are-They-aren't-They plotting. Most things are
overdetermined in GR. In `Vineland' the symbols are dissociated from
any background. They don't appear to signify anything or rather they
appear to signify but the exact signification is unclear. And maybe
that's appropriate to an America which has lost all sense of history,
religion, mythology, ritual, tradition.

> --The subject matter & settings seem more "trivial" than V or GR for
> a couple of reasons: the familiarity in time & space for most of us
> makes the book seem less "exotic" than the WWII backdrop, the
> Sudwest, the Khirgiz Light; and if the media have taught us anything
> in the last 20 years, it is to sneer at the 60's and anything to do
> with them.

I agree with your use of the word `seems' here. Global conflict
notwithstanding the `civilization' stakes were pretty high in the 60s
(and maybe one can make a case for the 80s too), just in a different
way. The 60s were definitely not familiar enough for me (born in 1960)
to really know what TRP was talking about. But `Vineland' inspired me
to find out more about what happened in the 60s and if ever I might in
the past have had to stifle a nascent sneer, never ever again. They
really were revolutionary times.

The problem of distance (or lack thereof) was definitely there for me
wrt the 80s but `Vineland' certainly didn't exacerbate the problem. On
the contrary, it helped focus things. I don't think Pynchon
obfuscates. He always has his own novel take on everything.

> I believe that, while valid, these judgements can cause people to miss out
> on a damn good book.  I feel that, in VINELAND, TRP did for California in
> the 60's what he did for WWII Europe in GR, or what he did for postwar
> New York in V;  and I think he did it very well.  There's also a level of
> humor in VINELAND that exceeds his other books;  and if you look REALLY
> close, there's a truly paranoid structure lurking behind much of the action.

Yes, I'd agree that it is not so far away as it appears from GR. Again
I am not in a position to know how close hsi take on California in the
60s/80s is but I am inclined look on it as prime quality first-hand
analysis rather than a second hand fantasia on a theme.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.