M&D - Tyburn Tree 'resurrections'

[Mark Wright AIA]

Howdy

--- rj <rjackson at mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> Mark Wright (Ain't I Amazin')(a nod to whomever pointed out the True
Referents of these initials) scoffs:
> 
> > Pynchon is crafting fiction, not "entertain(ing) the possibility of
> > were-beavers" and the like.  
> 
> Actually, I disagree with this. Please elaborate on your distinction.

My memory of the earlier exchanges which prompted me to interject (more
fool me) is hazy now, forgive me but I recall that you were making a
comparison between the 'belief system' you seek or seem to find
expressed in P's fiction and "orthodox Christianity".  You pointed out
(as I recall) that the "orthodox" don't or won't "entertain the
possibioity of" were-beavers, etc.  This in the context of an
interminable discussion, in many threads, about our man's BELIEFS. 
Does he BELIEVE in RESURRECTION corporal or spiritual?  Does he HOLD
OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF salvation?

Pynchon is a man who makes and sells things for a living:  books. 
These are wonderful books, passionate books, books which have about
them the 'ring of truth' which makes them compelling.  They incorporate
much historical data as raw material with which he works magic.  But at
a certain point he is, as George Carlin once said about his own dodge,
"making up goofy shit."  

To try and figure out what HE BELIEVES based on the books is (IMO) a
waste of your time.  It doesn't matter; you can't know; and he is
almost certainly (IMO) laughing through his hat.  Relax.  His
CHARACTERS might hold opinions, or believe in this or that.  His
NARRATOR(S), slippery dudes and dudettes that they are, might seem to
believe this or that.  The patterns and relationships set up in the
work belong to the work itself, and cannot be assigned to the author. 
The authors attitudes about things might be suggestive, but nothing
more.

>
> > He doesn't believe in the reality of his
> > fictional creations, or expect his readers to either.  
> 
> Quite right. He doesn't *believe*, or *expect* his readers to believe
> anything. He simply asks us to "entertain the possibility" of this or
> that in the fictional world he has created, (albeit a world not
> unlike
> our own in many respects).
> 
> > Fiction is
> 
> text.
> 
> > Fiction is
> > fiction
> 
> (Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.)
> 
> > Fiction is
> > fiction, perhaps most vividly so to its author.
> 
> James? Tolkien? Jack London? Fitzgerald? Joyce? Danielle Steele?
> 
> > Fiction is
> > fiction, perhaps most vividly so to its author.  Scripture is
> something
> > else, both in the intent of its authors ("Author?") and in the way
> > believers attend to it.
> 
> So, they weren't Bible *stories* after all?

Not in the same way that "Puss'n'Boots" or "How the Elephant Got His
Trunk" or "Love Story" or "Gravity's Rainbow" are.  Perhaps in the same
way that the egyptian "Book of the Dead" was.


ta all,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com