GRGR(17) The act of "bad" naming

[jporter]

At this late date- the post, post, post, POST modern read through of GR, it
occurs to me that august foax like Prof. Krafft, Weisenburger, even our own
redbug are, in a way, what "gospel" is to St. Thomas or Gnosticism. We've
come so far that there are orthodox and "profeesional" interpretations of
our man. It may not be actual suppression, but who and what determines
legitimacy?

It might be especially dicey when the story is as rich, complex and
self-reflexive as GR, or the Gospels, for that matter. So much so, that
alternative, "para" normal interpretations are encouraged, and orthodoxy
can never rest easy- least not early on, at any rate. What, then, is the
process by which one version becomes POSTerity- accepted and standard,
while others become passed over, not quite legitimate, and otherwise "given
a bad name?"

I think Pynchon might be serving up a little para able on this theme, with
the introduction of the duplicitouly coined  "Saure" Bummer, who shares
mind with Slothrop to *jointly* conceive of the misbegotten: "Raketmensch."
Counting up the score, that would be an impressive dis'ing of LSD, ESP,
Marijuana, and, with a stretch, the gnostic interpretation of the material
world and it's forces as an "abortion," in one fell swoop. All avenues of
transcendence, that have, in one way or another, been given a bad name.

I won't stretch it- via my own highly unorthodox, underground and
illiterary critical technique- derisively known 'round these parts as-
"literary quantum tunneling-" and drag on stage that notoriously un-kosher
jewish negro, the "mee-shugginah"  G-Man of M&D. To paraphrase an earlier
post- a hint is close enough for jazz.


"One bi-i-i-g mess o' Hog Jowls, comin' raaight up, Suh!"

jody