Pynchon as historian? (was: meshugginah posts)

[MantaRay at aol.com]

Jules:

>We have historical novels, among other uses.

which is another oxymoron. Historical novel is a mode of writing, not an
"illustration" of a particular period. These works are informed by very
serious biases and interrogations of their periods. 

>History is not reality. A historical reality is a reality of history, as
>opposed to, say, an invention of history.

Say what? My man, you accused me of doublespeak, remember. Kindly explain...

>>if his "political" impact is so injurious I suspect that is peripheral
>rather than intentional.

...which might have something to do with the fact you disapprove of his
renderings. Perhaps he is intentionally bashing the period and people you and
Anita so fondly remember. 

>I don't know that Pynchon's political impact is all that peripheral. I did
>know that Vineland is considered by some commentators to be a political and
>historical statement. I find it a hostile one.

The specifics of that hostility are exactly what is in question here, not
whether or not the language corresponds, or whether certain "illustrations"
might be off. 

> I think much of his writing is
>political satire.

Perhaps he is, then, satirizing these people. Why would he do that (as you
asked me in our private posts) is the question I have been trying to get you
to focus on instead of wasing time on the authenticity issue. 

>The distortions in Vineland tend to ridicule the culture it describes. 

I think you're answering your own questions, Jules.

MantaRay