Prosthetic Paradise (was Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1012

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> TF:
> > An approach that can comfortably accommodate all other
> > approaches is sometimes called Pluralism
> 
> Whatever labelled box you want to stick it in is fine. It is a
> descriptive approach to the way literary communication operates (rather
> than a prescriptive one, which virtually all of the others you list
> are.)
> 

"Critical pluralism" is an approach that emphasizes the
potential
usefulness of a variety of interpretive theories without
giving exclusive
emphasis to any single point of view. It encourages mutual
understanding
and dialogue rather than hostile conflict between adherents
of different
theories. At the same time, it encourages the proponents of
various
theories to approach their own viewpoints with skepticism
and rigorous
analysis. 

> > When you say,
> > "reclaiming the reader's privilege," this includes the
> > reaction against New Criticism, I assume, both its aesthetic
> > theories and the social-political implications
> 
> Yes.

While I admire this objective, I am cautious and skeptical
of the methods often employed to meet them. 

> 
> > This approach results NOT in
> > an infinite multiplicity of personal readings or views, but
> > results in a multiplicity of independent and impersonal
> > disciplines.
> 
> I don't understand this distinction. It seems to be obfuscation.

I hope the definition of critical pluralism above will make
my meaning clear. 
The disciplines might include, but are not limited to,
literal, anagogic, moral,
historical, psychological, rhetorical, political, and social
interpretations.
As I have argued in the past, it is not plausible, a priori,
or on historical grounds, to suppose  that a single
"correct" theory of the nature of fiction will be
discovered. Yet it  seems to me, that there is an
alternative to the empiric decision that fiction is simply
what the taste and the critical preferences of a time or a
place make it  and to the fruitless opposition of critical
theories that explain what fiction and  criticism are.


> 
> > I think the heart of
> > our disagreement is not simply how a text may be viewed, but
> > the primacy of the reader and the act of reading and or
> > interpreting a text.
> 
> I think a lot of it has to do with the terms we use, fugitive
> definitions and conceptions -- you know, the ambivalence of
> word-as-text. 

This is probably the case and I recognize that I am more
familiar with the terms you use than you are with the ones I
use. This is ONLY true because the terms you use share
common and current use in literary criticism, while the
terms I use are often more common to philosophy. 

"Reader", for example, is a term which I also apply to the
> author of the text. Pynchon "reads" history (and in this case I mean
> written histories) as well as antecedent fictions such as *Moby Dick*
> or *Mumbo Jumbo*, through his own text.

Yes, I understand this term "reader" and I understand what
you mean by the author as reader and that Pynchon reads
history through his own text. I am not always happy with
these terms and I don't always agree with the concepts that
they carry, for example, as to the term "text",  even in its
most comprehensive sense, I reject the idea that the world
is a "text." I reject it on philosophical grounds and not as
a useful term for certain critical approaches. 


> 
> > (some award the reader the reflected glory of
> > duplicating the author's creativity)
> 
> (while others continue to conflate literary creativity with divine
> Creation)

Yes, but the first, attributing the creative act of the
artist to the active reader is a matter that pertains to the
shifting relationship of the reader to the author and the
text.  Conflating creativity with divine creation (here I
assume you mean the literary creativity of the author or
artist and not the reader, though one could make both
arguments) involves artist and some sort of god or
inspiration. Such a view may have adverse implications for
the reader, the artist and the god. 

> 
> > When I say Pynchon insists that
> > humans should not be treated as machine parts, as means to
> > an end, as slaves, I am offering my opinion, I insist that
> > Pynchon insists.
> 
> I'm saying that Pynchon is not a polemicist in the sense you imply here.
> His fiction can be read as insisting this, as you do, but that is purely
> the individual reader's prerogative, not the unalloyed intention of the
> text.

Yes, it is my opinion, my reading of GR, but I did not
simply put my hand on the book and decide that this is what
Pynchon has to say. I have studied the text closely and I
have a clear and coherent argument that supports my claims.
My reading is not "the" reading we all must "get." It is
obviously mine. I encourage others to disagree with me and
to offer their own viewpoints. If you go back and read my
early post to this list you will notice that although I am
very consistent when it comes to certain matters, on other
matters I have benefited from the input of other list
members and the books, articles, essays they have directed
me to. Your input has been much appreciated. Many times I go
back and re-read a passage you refer to and reconsider or
change my own reading of the text and while I may not agree
entirely with your view or the view of others you cite or
your reading of those you cite, I am not fixed and stuck on
a single reading. For example,although we seem to be at odds
about Slothrop as a golem and the rocket as the Soul of
death transfigured, I think we are not polarized and I think
that we can come to an agreement on this issue.  



> > This is a rather bold statement and I don't think it at all
> > fair or accurate
> 
> I'm not sure which statement you are referring to. "Attacking"?! Not
> "fair or accurate"?! Surely you are the one being pejorative here?
> Where's your rebuttal?

Your statement was:

Much of the satiric humour in this novel operates at the
expense of
Stencil, and his solipsistic stencilisations of the past and
urge to see
conspiracy wherever he looks are hardly conclusive, even
within the
fictional landscape Pynchon renders. It is the same sort of
satire
Pynchon engineers with Oedipa when she self-consciously
admonishes
herself about how "unfit" she is for anything except
tracking down
arcane references in books. Like those devout fools who will
seek a soul
in ev'ry stone, or the paranoid and indefatigable
unravellers who
"discover" Geli Raubal or Theolonius Monk or JFK or King Zog
of Albania
in whichever oddly-named fictional character in Pynchon's
cast, all on
the most tenuous of evidence, in V. and Lot49 Pynchon
actually
consciously parodies the conspiracy theory genre, a label
with which his
own fiction -- ironically, and quite erroneously -- has
often since been
tagged.


> 
> > Tools and machines differ in the degree of independence of
> > operation from the skill and motive power of the operator:
> > the tool lends itself to manipulation, the machine to
> > automatic action.
> 
> It is a spectrum rather than a clear-cut distinction, I think.

Yes, these are categories along a spectrum, machine tool
would be someplace between tool and machine. 
> 
> > A hammer is a tool, a printing press is a
> > machine.
> 
> In both cases they are just inanimate lumps of wood and metal until they
> are used (by humans).

Right, and one could use a hammer as a pillow or a pillow as
a hammer. 

> 
> > what would be an example of a machine
> > using a man?
> 
> I accept that machines do not possess agency, except in Asimov's fiction
> and the like, but you are quite obstinately sticking to this narrow
> definition of the word "use" when, clearly, this is not the claim which
> has been made.
> 
> best


OK, but can you explain what you mean by machine "using" (or
what ever term works) a man?