MDMD(2): Deflation and Friendship flip-flop

[Greg Montalbano]

Jody Porter, in his response to Eric Alan Weinstein's post (and a round of
applause for E.A.W., for the most enjoyable & rewarding post this week):

>But the incident with l'Grand  seems to be the key. Was it chance? ...
>
>... the evolution of
>this  relationship seems also to have exploited the threat of something
>external and thematically sinister, and likewise to have left us, poor
>readers, once again wondering about cause and effect.
>
>jody

Others have commented on the comparative lack of nested, interlocking
conspiracies, both grand and lesser, in M&D;  where, in past Pynch novels,
these conspiracies were described in great detail (almost characters in
themselves), in the new novel they are only hinted at, drawn in the vaguest
of manner, and never brought to any recognizable fruition.

I have to wonder if this represents an evolution of TRP's view of history,
or perhaps his attempt to correct a long standing, widespread
misapprehension of his writing:  it has long been taken for granted (by
reviewers & a number of scholars) that TRP is "the paranoid's paranoid",
and assumed that he takes all of these conspiracy theories seriously.  Is
it not possible that, all this time, what he has really been writing about
is the overwhelming human need to impose structure on random events, a need
so compelling that we all willingly assume our roles in whatever "grand,
master conspiracies" are presented to us? -- and about the absurd lengths
some will go to, to connect the dots -- 

The incident with l'Grand was the key, only insofar as it gave M & D's
friendship a baptism in blood, a necessary foundation...

I for one am glad to see Pynchon easing-off on conspiracy theory;  it
leaves room for so many more interesting elements -- like the "marriage" of
Mason & Dixon.