Elitist Pynchon-ites?

[slothrop]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org]On Behalf
Of s~Z
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 5:50 PM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Elitist Pynchon-ites?

Kai teetered:
  ähem ... though i don't want to make my karma worse by making you
unsubscribe
  i can't help but disagree. to me gr (- unlike v) has nearly nothing to do
with
  pierrot lunaire, but a lot with katy lied ...


I'll stay somewhat calm if you're talking about the lyrics. If you are
suggesting the musical composition is at GR level I'll have to send you some
Xenakis or Harry Partch. Steely Dan, compositionally speaking, just isn't as
good as the real thing.
Dear co-Pynchon-ites.
Why do you even attempt to compare music to literature? Sound and language
are two completely different mediums (please pardon the truism), appealing
to different areas of the brain. Music speaks to the "thymic" part, if I am
not mistaken, the emotional cosmos, the psyche itself, if you will. The
perception of sound is much more direct, almost subconscious (which is also
true with vision, but that is another matter). Words, on the other hand,
have to be interpreted by the "logical" part of the brain, which leads to a
huge variety of multiple connotations. In that sense, not possessing the raw
power of organized sound (or possessing but a bare minimum), words are more
"human" and less "natural" than music (quotes are obligatory). In short, it
would be quite arbitrary on our part to seek analogies where there are
none - and are not meant to be: Pynchon does use a variety of forms of music
such as jazz, rock, blues, classical, opera, traditional music et al., but
not to make distinctions between them - which of course exist, but he isn't
interested in them. He uses these forms as metaphors, encompassing different
aspects (tiny fragments, if you like) of the grand collective human
experience. After all, his writing IS anthropocentric (I would be very
interested in your views on this particular issue). Take for example the
argument between Gustav and Säure (GR, pp. 440-1) on Rossini vs. Beethoven,
which turns out to be a conflict between the Italian and the German
Weltanschauung, or Southern and Northern culture in general. You will notice
that Pynchon doesn't take sides. Both views are presented as equally valid,
because both, jointly, help form an idea about (and are constituent parts
of) the "real" world (either without or within). This "real" world knows no
exclusions. It defies any attempt at analyzing it. It just IS. Likewise,
music is immune to verbal analysis and cannot be confined to the strict
space of a novel. But, on the other hand, of course, a novel (especially one
as full as GR) cannot be confined to the strict space of a piece of music,
or even a whole genre of music. We 're talking about two completely distinct
things which co-exist as parts of the larger picture but are not subject to
one-on-one identification.
I hope I am making some sense...
By the way, a group of people discussing a writer such as Pynchon via e-mail
could be considered rather elitist by definition, wouldn't you think? (I
mean that as a compliment.)