Pynchonian Rorschach

[David Casseres]

>Casseres, the spelling-freak writes:

Now, I'm only freaky about it when it's My Name.

>>Seems to me Gravity's Rainbow has not been subjected to the same kind of 
>>fact-checking as Mason & Dixon, simply because it doesn't even remotely 
>>appear to "historical fiction" while Mason & Dixon does, remotely. 
>
>Come again? We spent much time on this list dissecting GR's so-called facts,
>mulling over I.G Farben, WWII blah blah, indeed, treating it as if it was a
>historical novel. Mickey Rooney is just the L.E.D. in M&D. We're purposefully
>overlooking the "literary effect" of M&D, in my opinion, because the period
>is farther removed from us. I'm not looking at M&D any differently than GR
>when I take it apart. 

Good for you.  But I do think there's an overall difference.  I think we 
have people looking for mistakes in M&D, instead of looking for 
historical insight as we all did with GR.

And I don't think either of them makes any sense at all if treated as 
"historical novels," unless I have an over-determined idea of what a 
historical novel is.  All of Pynchon's novels are about us, you and me, 
right now and right here.  History comes in as a discussion of how we got 
to be us, here and now.  Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian is a 
historical novel, entirely concerned with How it Was in the Royal Navy in 
the early 19th century, and strict accuracy counts there because it isn't 
a metaphor or explanation for any other period, place, or people.

When I go and track something down from the history of GR or M&D, it's 
because Pynchon is revealing some story that I want to know more about.  
And I do believe that's what I saw other p-listers doing with Gravity's 
Rainbow.  Finding out that Pynchon's German in GR wasn't always quite 
right was given very little attention; finding out what the 
technological, industrial, cinematic, spiritual, musical, political etc. 
currents in Germany were like over a period of several decades was rather 
more important.

Mason & Dixon isn't getting the same balance, I believe; the present 
exploration of Dutch Calvinism is on target, but the question of whether 
it's a mistake, signalling a lapse of concern with accuracy, to have 
George Washington call himself "a meshugginer" (for god's sake) has 
probably generated more verbiage and taken more time, and *not* just 
because Jules started it.

If somebody wants to twitch and fidget over an *interesting* anachronism 
or maybe it's one of those rohrschach things, how about that *coach ride 
to Mt. Vernon,* eh?  The ride's madness and discomfort are greatly 
emphasized and exaggerated; it's worse than a sea voyage.  Why?  The 
passengers are given sandwiches by the coachman, and they throw the 
plates out the windows.  They do?  What plates, did the sandwiches come 
on *plates*?  Were they *paper* plates???  It's hard for me to imagine 
Mason & Dixon in the late 18th century throwing away plates of metal, or 
china, or earthenware.  If they were wooden, they wooden be called 
"plates," they'd be trenchers.  Have I caught Our Encyclopedist in a 
sloppy, senile error?

Nah.  He's up to something.  The coach is a time machine, is why it's so 
weird.  The plates are paper.  M&D throw them out the windows 'cause it's 
the American thing to do, on their way to the 1990's to talk with Bill 
Clinton and Sammy Davis Jr.  But it could all use a
 little more 
examination than just noticing, hey hey, that they wind up smoaking a 
lotta dope and Bill/George makes a lame Yinglish joak.

There's stuff like this on ev'ry Page, just like in Gravity's Rainbow.  
It will reward our Scrutiny, and our Discussion.


Cheers,
David