Missing parts

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Sorry, I must admit that now I am completely confused by
this thread and admit that I have contributed to this
confusion by reversing two quotes: the first from Yeats,
should reply to your. "Pynchon appears more interested in
preserving the human element,
 thereby leaving immortality to the artists who chance upon
it, not by will or programme but by gift and circumstance." 

Now you may agree or disagree that this poem takes up the
theme you identify as Pynchon's interest. The second quote
from V., replies to your:

"TRP's characters to try to replace frail human
> > > parts with ivory or metal or stone--or to identify with seemingly
> > > omnipotent weapons, abstract theories, and non-human robots.  Probably a
> > > theme he picked up from Henry Adams, who calls it a primary drive, one
> > > underlying sex and religion. "


Next, you extend this theme that Pynchon barrowed (let's
say) from Adams to GR to M&D.

I think we can discuss Adams and these ideas if we hold the
ball of strings together. If we drop it down or up the
winding stair, I don't think we can really talk about
Pynchon and Adams and Parts. We can for example turn to V.,
and consider Pynchon's use of the inanimate. We could turn
directly to chapter 10 as the focus. Or maybe chapter XXV of
The Education. We could pick a character--Profane, for
example. How does Adams fit into the current grgr reading? 

TF

JULIUS RAPER wrote:
> 
> Terrance,
>  Well, Rachel's car is no Yeats, not even a Byzantine bird.  And there's a
> reason, I imagine, why it's sub-rosa--motives hidden if actions not
> repressed.  From MG's to Yoyodyne to V-1's and V-2's to ICBM's--not such a
> big leap as it seems.  Or even from Right Lines upsetting the dragons in
> new lands to ICBM's annihilating the old lands. All these projections and
> projectiles seem much of a piece--and very different from Venus on a
> Uffizi wall.
>                                 Cheers, Jack
> 
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > JULIUS RAPER wrote:
> > >
> > > Terrance,
> > >         The last part means that it appears to be the narcissistic desire
> > > for immortality that causes TRP's characters to try to replace frail human
> > > parts with ivory or metal or stone--or to identify with seemingly
> > > omnipotent weapons, abstract theories, and non-human robots.  Probably a
> > > theme he picked up from Henry Adams, who calls it a primary drive, one
> > > underlying sex and religion.
> >
> >                                       ....and gather me
> >
> >                             Into the artifice of eternity.
> >
> >                                       IV
> >
> >                          Once out of nature I shall never
> > take
> >                         My bodily form from any natural
> > thing,
> >                      But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths
> > make
> >                         Of hammered gold and gold enameling
> >                          To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
> >                          Or set upon a golden bough to sing
> >                           To lords and ladies of Byzantium
> >                        Of what is past, or passing, or to
> > come.
> >
> >
> >
> > >         Pynchon appears more interested in preserving the human element,
> > > thereby leaving immortality to the artists who chance upon it, not by will
> > > or programme but by gift and circumstance.
> > >                                         JRR
> >
> > Sorry, I'm so thick sometimes, I don't understand this idea.
> >
> > "Love for an object, this was new to him. When he found out
> > not long after this that the same thing was with Rachel and
> > her MG, he had his first intelligence that something had
> > been going on under the rose."        V..16
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JULIUS RAPER wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Terrance,
> > > > >         A good point.  But each addition to the body has to go somewhere
> > > > > and so, in the language of V. (the book), represents a falling away from
> > > > > the human that defines a decadence, another narcissistic attempt to swap
> > > > > the human for the inflated dreams of immortality. Is this not so?
> > > > >                                 Best, Jack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I agree with the first half of your statement-- "each
> > > > addition to the body has to go somewhere and so, in the
> > > > language of V. (the book), represents a falling away from
> > > > > the human that defines a decadence"--- but, while don't diagreeing with the second part, I'm not sure what it means.
> > > >
> > > > "What's automatism, Grovie?"  (S.L. TSI.188)
> > > > TF
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pynchon seems more interested in added parts. This interest is evident in his
> > > > > > early work--betwixt V. and CL--"The Secret Integration." In said story we find
> > > > > > the Slothrops and Carl Barrington, an "imaginary" friend and double of Carl
> > > > > > McAfee. Carl is made of junk and all the "possibilities turned away from." He
> > > > > > is a robot of ballistics theory, science and invention, and following V.
> > > > > > becomes Increasing an Abstraction and Increasing Inanimate, until he is
> > > > > > scattered and abandoned "to the old estate's other attenuated ghosts." Sort of
> > > > > > like our American Rocket Man!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >