Gottfried & Blicero, Nietzsche & Pynchon

[Stacy Borah]

I think a lot of the structural composition of "GR" was definitely worked 
out beforehand, as you say, and I totally agree with the unconscious or 
subconscious origins of meaning for good writers.  But, I also remember many 
times when I was tripping on acid and seeing patterns everywhere: seeing the 
repeating waves of ripples in a single raindrop, the spaces between plaster 
cells in a wall, talking to my dog and having her explain a certain piece of 
poetry to me, etc.  I wrote many things on acid that made sense at the time, 
but afterward -- well, the meanings eluded me until someone else pointed 
them out.  And, I think that may be what Pynchon was referring to in the 
Jules Siegel article (which is where I saw it).  Also, there have been times 
when I have gone into semi-trances while at the keyboard and then later, 
upon re-reading what I had put on the screen, not understanding a word but 
somehow feeling that it was right.  And I think that's where great art 
begins, when it feels right.  More so than technical brilliance and 
stylistic panache.  All of which TP has in spades, especially in "GR".


>From: Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Gottfried & Blicero, Nietzsche & Pynchon
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:30:43 +0000 (GMT)
>
>
>
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Stacy Borah wrote:
>
> > Saying that there is "Not much of anything careless about Pynchon the
> > writer" is overlooking one very important fact that Pynchon himself has
> > admitted to:  the fact that he himself can't remember what he meant when 
>he
> > wrote many of the episodes in "GR", that he was either too wasted or too 
>far
> > out on some existential ledge to pull any coherent meaning out of his 
>own
> > text.  Can't remember right offhand where he said this, but i will look
> > diligently tomorrow when I wake up.
>
>
>Think this was from Jules Siegel but I don't recall it referring to "many
>of the episodes"--possibly however. I would think that in any good writer
>the meaning--the meaning for him or her--would be in substantial part
>directed from the unconscious level--just as much of the meaning for the
>readers is unconscious (not all of course). But the point I wanted to make
>was that the book has such a complex, worked-out structure to it (as
>documented by Weisenburger for one) that a substantial part of the
>composition must surely has been carried out in the full light of day with
>all the author's conscious wits about him. Once this phase was complete P
>could light up his pipe and let the surface flow. (or so I would imagine)
>
>			P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com