A Soul In Ev'ry Stone

[Mike Weaver]

I'd written

>>The last line leads us back out into the world we
>>the readers inhabit and may be  a challenge to each of us to get up off our
>>endless bums and join the resistance,  to recognise our equivalent of
>>Roger's dilemma as posed on p713 - 
>>"...which is worse:  living on as Their pet or  death? ... Letting it sit
>>there for a while is no compromise, but a decision to live, on Their terms.
>>. . ."
>
And Paul  Mackin replied
>>>>>>>Not to put too fine a point on it, but before rushing off in all
directions waving the Sayings of Chairman >Tom around in the air,  I suggest
we spend a few moments of silent thought considering the possibility that
>Roger may be
>laboring under a major false dichotomy. 
>
>Is not the REAL "choice" that of living as Their pet A-AND Death?
>
>Pessimistically,
>                              P.
>
Some silent moments later I'd like to suggest that the comparison (not
dichotomy)  that Roger poses is valid.  Living on Their terms for someone
who understands the death-in-life They offer is possibly so painful as to
make oblivion attractive.  That death may result from resistance is a
possibility understood by an awful lot of revolutionaries,  but the quality
of life in resistance is presumably that much greater than that of slavery
as to make the choice (on an individual level) a conscious celebration of
life in the face of death and on a collective level an affirmation of
Paul's own take on the song

>While individuals die, Life goes on (for a while anyway); the dead leave
earthly traces and are not forgotten (at >least not right away).

(To which I'd add that the effects of their actions add to the world those
still living inhabit)
				
: Tom Stanton wrote

>--Poles? Here? Come, come, my good man. Seriously, I can't ever separate
>the literary from the cultural/political themes. That's why it's such a great
>book. By way of example, I see "Ulysses" as being 90% literary tour de force
>with a smattering of social commentary, whereas "1984" is a highly charged
>political tract presented as a literary work. GR succeeds by expertly
>balalncing both extremes.
>

Who's separating?  Not I.   GR's brilliance includes weaving together the
polemical and passionately political and the literary. ( Balance IMO is a
death culture word,  a cessation of movement or tension,  a tenuous and
temporary affair in this universe as far as I can tell). 
[ Anyway polarities define each other in a dynamic world.  Every spectrum
has its red and blue ends,  and in TP's favourite distribution the majority
gather at the centre.  But as events proceed towards resolution more are
driven by centrifugal forces towards the extremes.  The sympathetic
characters of GR eventually form/join the Counterforce.]
 I was not counterposing the themes of the book but the approaches and
affinities of we the readers.   It might have been better had I not used
*poles* but said *distinct approaches* but with regard to the subject of
this thread I stand by what I said,  that an undeniable aspect of GR is TP's
challenge to each of us readers to recognise the real world displayed in his
fiction and make our choices,  to live on as a willing part of Their system
or join the resistance.    Is it in the Mindful Pleasures collection where
one essayist says that he  rejects TP's world view but recognised the
challenge posed and had to acknowledge that he was on Their side.  He at
least understood the challenge posed. 
 Part of my pondering is whether some of us by focussing overmuch on the
literary references and constructions, acting like amphetamine crazed
bloodhounds in search of Pynchonian influences - in both directions,  in and
of his work - are avoiding the political challenge. This carries on into the
disappointment with Vineland.  Yep literarily, in comparison to GR it was a
disappointment BUT politically it is spot on in its affirmation of the
continuity of resistance to Their power and its expression of the reasons
the Counterforce (60's radicalism) failed.  
>What I love about the TRP ending is the song for this sing-along 
>is a hymn you would sing in church, & the truncated but jolly 
>"Now everybody-" that follows leaves the action open. Sing? Pray? 
>Die? Dunno what call to action there is here...

The way you put has the "Now everybody-" simply the end of the song but it
is also the end of the whole book which I do feel, as I've just said, is a
call to action.  
Nuff said.   
Goodnight   
Mike