Re. Warped and Distilled?

Wed Jan 13 17:44:27 CST 1999

Me:  I don't know, but what's your point?  It's a big leap from DH Lawrence
to TR Pynchon.  As you say above, TRP is "engaged in a radical
reconsideration of the relationship between reality and fiction," and I
would add fantasy, mythology, symbolism, and a whole long list of other
"engaging" spices thrown into the brew.  Its a whole 'nother cup of tea.

The revolutionary development that has been redefining the "novel" in this
century involves new
subject matter, style, and technique combined with the whole long list of
spices mingled from
Various cultures, art forms, and disciplines. These parallel the tangled lines
that Revd. Cherrycoke
Speaks of in M&D:

In a previous post, I included this quote and comment

Facts are but the Play-things of lawyers, - Tops and Hoops, for-ever a
-spin
. Alas, the Historians may indulge in no such idle Rotating.
History is not Chronology, for that is left to lawyers, - nor is it
Remembrance, for Remembrance belongs to the people. History can as
little pretend to the Veracity of the one, as claim the Power of the
other, - her Practitioners, to survive, must soon learn the arts of the
quidnunc, spy, and Taproom Wit, -that there may ever continue more than
one life-line back into the Past we risk, each day, losing our forebears
in forever, -not a Chain of single Links, for one broken Link could lose
us All, -rather, a great disorderly Tangle of Lines, long and short,
weak and strong, vanishing into the Mnemonick Deep, with only their
Destination in common.

The Revd Wicks Cherrycoke, Christ and History

    History, Literature, and the practitioners of both are tangled in
lines cast deep into Remembrance. History may be considered an objective
series of public events, and Literature may be regarded as an Art that
represents, or ignores, or fictionalizes these events. And history may
be considered a narrative, and its relation to literature may be more
reciprocal, and our sense of the nature and significance of narrative
may influence our sense of historical patterns and their meanings and
vice versa.

Pip Magwitch

I signed this post Pip Magwitch ironically alluding to the chain and link
metaphor adopted by Dickens in Great Expectations. If you prefer Melvilles
Monkey-Rope, CH. 72 M.D. I saw that this situation of mine was the precise
situation of every mortal that breathes; only in most cases, he, one way or
other, has this Siamese connection with a plurality of other mortals. If Joyce
delight thee more see Ulysses Ch. 3, 35-40,
The cord of all link back, strandenwining cable of all flesh. That is why
mystic monks. Will you be as gods? Gaze in your omphalos. Hello! Kinch here.
Put me on to Edenville. Aleph, alpha: nought, nought, one.
Remenbrance belongs to the people and Art can claim its veracity and its power.
In Hawthorne and His Moses, Melville, speaking of the relationship of veracity
and art wrote: For in this world of lies, Truth is forced to fly like a scared
white doe in the woodlands; and only by cunning glimpses will she reveal
herself, as in Shakespeare and other masters of the great Art of Telling the
Truth, -even though it be covertly, and by snatches. For Joyce, Art is not
dependent on or conditioned by history but is a self-creating integral power.
This aesthetic principle is suggested by the titles of his fiction: in the
Portrait of the Artist as a young Man, art is the cause of itself in the sense
that the art of the artist produces its own genesis. In Ulysses art is the
cause of its self in the sense that the art of the Odyssey produces its own
re-enactment in a single day in Dublin. In Finnegans Wake art is the cause of
itself in the sense that the end of the work joins the beginning to produce a
wholemole millwheeling vicociclometer.

Regardless of whether we compare Pynchon to Melville or Joyce or to Satirist as
someone on list has suggested-Huxley, Lewis, Waugh, for example, the idea I am
trying to convey falls into the context of a broad discussion on this list
regarding the relationship of Art (in this instance literature-fiction, novels)
to history, culture and human consciousness.  The great leap backward or
sideways or into abysmal confusion, from Pynchon to D.H. Lawrence and Woolf
that someone on list grumbled about is understandable, for I have failed to
plainly communicate and bolster my statements. I am willing to do so if anyone
is interested.
Also, please accept my apology for not including the threads, that included the
adjectives or accolades warped, distilled, and fable-ized. that I took
issue with. In not being mindful and well versed in current critical terms, I
often fail to understand meaningful discussion on this list. In my hastily
written posts, I sometimes cause more confusion than I can emend before the
list has moved on to what interests and concerns the majority here.
Terrance

David Morris wrote:

> David M (me) said:
>
> >>Pynchon's "History of the 60's," VL, is his own, warped and
> >>distilled, containing alternate-alternate possibilities as
> >>commentary on what "actually" happened, and fable-ized
> >>to tell "truths" relevant to now.
>
> Terrance F. Flaherty responded:
>
> >This is a rather odd way to describe Mr. Pynchon's fiction.
> >At the end of the twentieth century, novelists like Pynchon
> >continue to explore and develop new subject matter, new style,
> >and new technique. In addition, Pynchon and others are engaged
> >in a radical reconsideration of the relationship between reality and
> >fiction; a consideration begun at the beginning of this century by
> >their Modernist predecessors. Are the historical novels of D.H.
> >Lawrence(The Rainbow, Women in Love) "fable-ized" truths?
>
> Me:  I don't know, but what's your point?  It's a big leap from DH Lawrence
> to TR Pynchon.  As you say above, TRP is "engaged in a radical
> reconsideration of the relationship between reality and fiction," and I
> would add fantasy, mythology, symbolism, and a whole long list of other
> "engaging" spices thrown into the brew.  Its a whole 'nother cup of tea.
>
> >The cultural changes he describes in these novels are as real
> >in the conventional and historical sense as the Vietnam War
> >and student protests of the 1960s. Progressive industrialization
> >is a powerful force in these novels, but the history we read in D.H.
> >Lawrence's fiction is concerned with human consciousness and
> >the unconscious life of characters living and loving in the age of
> >accelerating cultural transformation.
>
> Me:  I continue to state that VL is not "about" the 60's, GR is not "about"
> WW2, MD is not "about" the actual people and events.  Though they are chock
> full of amazingly detailed true facts of history these are primarily
> vehicles for his "real" messages.  It's the "real" message that keeps me
> reading (as well as the "warped" way he delivers it).
>
> >Lawrence's fiction is not distilled or warped commentary anymore
> >than Woolf's 'To The Lighthouse' is a "fabel-ized representation of
> >possible truths."  [snip]
>
> Me: I never said anything of the kind.  Woolf & Lawrence are not TRP.
>
> ------------------------------