Stats

[Henry Musikar]

> 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.
> 
> 
I think that Vineland is just a more "normal" book/novel than 
Pynchon's other works, less meta, less looney tunes. Took some 
getting used to: Pynchon as novelist.
      | |
     /|/|
____/ | |
O   \ | |
     \|\|
      | |