Pynchonian Rorschach

[jporter]

 Jules responds:

>You've got this all wrong. The Sixties wasn't a generation it was a period
>of time. I wasn't a member of some age group. I was an individual living in
>and observing a very intense thaw in American society. This affected
>millions of people of all ages. There was a discussion several months ago on
>the copy editors list about what we mean by the Sixties and it was generally
>agreed that it began in 1965 and ended in 1973.

You certainly were a member of a particular cohort, one that came of age in
the fifties- when you first went to college, and then served in the
military (Intelligence, wasn't it?) in the Eisenhower era. The sixties did
effect millions of people, but somewhat differently depending on their age
at the time. Certainly being faced with the moral decision of Vietnam and
the draft had a different impact on those at risk. Coming of age during a
"very intense thaw in American society" was alot different (not necessarily
better or worse) then when you came of age.

>
>By your definition none of the Chicago Seven, including Abbie Hoffman (born
>in 1936) would be part of the Sixties.

They were part of the sixties, no doubt, as the characters Weed Altman,
Brock Vond, Hector Zuniga were part of the sixties, but not in the same way
as the characters Frenesi, Zoyd, the film collective, the college
"radicals" were of the sixties. There was a fundamental difference between
those that came of age in the sixties, those that were led, and that
generation which proceded them.

>My identification is not necessarily with some diffuse Sixties mentality but
>with a very specific subculture that existed in Northern California and
>elsewhere called communalism, in which I was very active. Pynchon
>caricatures this subculture directly and indirectly in his works.

>As I pointed out in an earlier message, I received a letter by mail from a
>writer in Spain asking me to comment on his sources. He assumes, apparently,
>that Pynchon is writing history disguised as fiction. According to your
>position, I am not qualified to make observations on Pynchon's portrayals of
>a subculture that I witnessed and was part of because I was ten years too
>old when I had these experiences.

I have defended your right to make observations, etc. in the past, and you
know it. I will continue to do so when it seems you are being attacked
unfairly. But I shall also insist that you provide detail and specific
examples from Pynchon's oeuvre to support the broad generalizations your
making concerning his work. So far you have not managed to do that. Let's
hear the specifics.

>
>>I feel this urge to say: "It's okay, Jules. We can speak for ourselves, and
>with a lot more authenticity than you can. Tell us about Elvis or Sputnik,
>or something."

>You are just making a fool of yourself here and being rather boorish.

I, boorish? Jules you ol' Thanatoid. How about this from one of your
responses to MantaRay, yesterday:

>You're quite resentful about us Sixties types telling you that we tried to
>change the world and failed. How do you think we feel when someone like
>Thomas Pynchon is included among us?

Jules, you are, and always will be, a fifties type. You wish you were a
sixties type, although I can't imagine why. Or maybe I can, but it would be
pure speculation. "us Sixties types"   "*we* tried to change the world and
failed" give me a break. It just doesn't sound like your perspective is
much more authentic than any other middle-aged guy playing a role. Besides,
you figured to roll your experiences into magazine articles. Sounds kinda
like what you tried to do here.

Broad generalizations like "You're quite resentful about us Sixties types"
indicates your failure to understand what was going on during the sixties,
especially as perceived by those of us coming of age during that time. Yet
it does offer insights into one type of co-optation with which the sixties
generation has had to cope: those who would like to speak for us.

>> I.e., no right or wrong here, but Jules just keeps adding to that already
>thick file labeled: "Jules Seigel."
>
>How about right and wrong spelling, as in Siegel? We're not talking about
>right or wrong but historical accuracy. We've now established that this
>doesn't apply to the works of Thomas Pynchon. I think that's a good thing
>and I'm glad that I provoked this consensus.

OK, Siegel. We've established that Mr. Pynchon writes fiction, and you've
made it clear that you don't like it. If you want to delude yourself into
thinking that you've "provoked this concensus" what's the harm? You have
also revealed something of yourself, with which I have no trouble. Now you
have almost gotten to the point of actually discussing (and citing)
specifics of Pynchon's work, which I admit is my personal agenda. I want to
hear you discuss the actual work, not obliquely, or with generalizations
putting down his authenticity, etc., but an actual textual analysis, which
many of us do- let the chips fall where they may- all the time. Our egos
get bruised, professionals shy away, lurk, or even take the plunge- but
it's a hell of a jam. It's fun, and everyone lives to try again another
day. If you can bring yourself to that form of innocence- revealing
yourself that way (especially given your particular past) to this
community- you'll make me smile. And you will have earned my respect,
whether I agree with you or not. I'm waiting, and I bet the rest of us:
Sixties alumnae, Gen-Xers, Twentysomethings, even your own fifties crowd,
all of us are waiting.

Come on Jules, you ol' 'toid, materialize, and bury the hatchet.

jody