Internet Perfidity (Fiction and history in M&D)

[Peter Giordano]

I said:
>> 2) It occurs to me that I'm not sure what "reinventing history" means -
>> Perhaps we mean "to refocus" [...]
Andrew replies:
>Well, take what was once `fact' but no longer is fact e.g. that the
>King of England has a divine right to rule England. Or how about the
>`fact' that phlogisten was present in various compounds and enabled
>them to burn. Meanwhile. we now have facts about human rights and
>protons, electrons, neutrons et al. Didn't have them 300 years ago,
>did we?  [...]
I say:
I can see where Andrew's first example is a "reinvented fact" presuming
that facts can be things that people will be thrown in jail for - In fact,
it's a perfect example of "reinvention" in the context of pure (as in not
fictionalized or transmuted-for-the-sake-of-art) history - I'm not sure
that I agree with his second two examples - Didn't the physics of
phlogisten or protons or neutrons always exsist?  The difference is that
new we have names - Now in some cultures the burning of various compounds
might be explained by scientific principles - In other cultures, by magic -
Is either explanation factually wrong in its own context? Or to relate this
to M&D: Is Pynchon "factually wrong" to portray George Washington the way
he does in his novel?  Or to relate this to the original thread - Is a
person lying when he makes a statement about an author which he knows is
untrue (i.e. he has no basis of experience to say it)
I said:
>> 3) Andrew suggests that the text 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective [...]
Andrew responds:
>What are these `facts behind the text'?
I say:
I think I follow Andrew's Wittgenstein notes but my point (I think) was
more simple - I was merely suggesting that in terms of pure numbers or
concepts (as in Plato's cave?) the concept of two (no matter how it is
represented in text or symbol) when added to another specific concept of
two must always result in the same comcept of four - Again, to relate this
back to M&D: Pynchon's concept of George Washington must on some level ring
with a universal reference accepted as "true" otherwise there is no point
in putting George Washington in the text - Or to put it in the context of
internet perfidity: The success of the Vonnegut hoax depended on the
perpetrator recognizing the "universals" about the author (enough to fool
Kurt's own wife) - Or: I could tell some cool lies about Thomas Pynchon as
a kid if I could "factually" establish that he and I were in the same
summer camp at the same time - And if you wanted to "check the facts" the
registration records for the camp would be enough to verify any stories I
chose to make up
I said:
>> 4) Who discovered America?  Assuming the above means who was the first
>> person from Europe to set foot on American soil (the generally accepted
>> interpretation of the above) I'm sure nobody knows but that doesn't mean
>> that there wasn't a first European to do so
Andrew responds:
>It's a trick question. America wasn't discovered, it was invented.
I say:
And I'm easily tricked - But wouldn't Wittgenstein say that the rocks and
soil and fawna were always there but the concept: America, New World, etc.
was invented?  Or in terms of M&D: There are facts about Mason and Dixon
and the history of survey but Pynchon uses these facts to invent something
else

Peter Giordano
Williams College
Williamstown, MA