Counter-thoughts

[jporter]

CH:

>Yo Dudes and Dudeens,

Dudeens? Don't you mean dudettes, or are you referring to dudes in drag?

 >What method
>have we for establishing primacy?

Primacy? Method? Category? Oh, I get it. You're referring to literary
interpretation as a way of earning a living. In that case, I would choose
the method that is most profitable in the market place of literary
criticism, and with which you feel most comfortable.

>                Indeed, does he have a "message" or are all of his dialectics
>always so undermining of his apparent assertions that all of his oeuvre
>amounts to a joke on the reader?  This view has its followers.

Does he have a message? I think, yes, but it's different for different
foax. I enjoy hearing many different versions.  I like to read original or
off-beat interpretations, probably of not much value to the professional
literary critic.

>                IMHO reading Pynchon is like a series of exercises in problem
>solving.   Reading Pynchon is like solving a
>problem in diagnosis for a physician.  [snip]  The doc has various tests
>and procedures he can employ.  Do we have any method?  Or is it just "taste"
>or personal opinion.

The most valuable information available to the type of physician you're
alluding to is the story the patient relates, or "the history," as it is
elicited by a series of questions and answers, and especially by a
willingness to listen.  That information is reflected in the doc's mind
against experience with alot of different patients. The exam is of
secondary importance. Testing may or may not be confirmatory, but most
certainly, testing is guided by the history and the exam.  I wonder,
though, if you haven't got the analogy reversed? Aren't "We" the infecting
or parasitizing agenct in this case? Don't we readers infect an otherwise
innocent (and inanimate) world with our own repressed and not so repressed
desires and prejudices? What's the cure for that type of disease? P.'s
style seems to suggest a possible anodyne.

>                One big problem in reading TRP is genre.  If we apply the
>critical methods based on Aristotle's poetics for evaluating a Pynchon novel
>we're gonna get in trouble.  Pynchon likes certain forms:

Don't you mean that you like to categorize the text as being in one
"official" form or another, and then, spin an interpretation which is
consistent with it?  Isn't that type of "form-ism" a potentially bigger
trap, especially when the author in question is not particularly concerned
with whether foax in the business of literary criticism are able to parlay
their activity into, say, a new home, a car, or even health insurance?
Approaching Pynchon with any pre-conceived bag of critical tricks or
techniques reminds me of that problem we had down there in Vietnam, Sam (I
can almost hear Captain Marvel reloading...ZAP!). But go ahead, Jim, don't
let any lack of critical sophistication on our part slow you down, share
your secrets with us...

>Menippean Satire,
>the Encyclopedia Narrative in particular.  But mixed in with these are
>sections of more or less naturalistic technique (the Jessica/Roger love
>affair, for one), and some protracted jokes (For deMille, young fur henchmen
>can't be rowing. and the Candy Drill).  TRP is often slipping back and forth
>between genres.  But it is still important that we readers know which genres
>they are.  So genre is probably more important in reading Pynchon than it is
>in reading most authors of this past millennium.

Pynchon's work seems to emerge, finally- as a whole- organized from a weird
assortment of scraps and waste, as if by magic, or some higher order of
being. There's no rational way back to the simple linear laws that might
govern the behavior of any of the parts. Just so, in The Secret
Integration, it required the perfect contribution of ALL the kids to get
past The Cavalryman and into the soul of the rotting house. One less kid
and they wouldn't have made it through the crumbling corridors of western
metaphysics. One more, and they would have breezed right through, forever
unaware- like a parallel universe with weaker gravity. Yet, acting in
concert, they are able to discover the deep security within the basement.
So What, as Miles might say, if one of them turns out to be imaginary- an
angel, if you will, feeding on nectar delicately purloined from the
parasitic imagination of the reader. By the time "we" realize it, it's all
too late. It's S&M: Secret and Magic. Once assembled, it has its own,
emergent, rules to obey.  The whole work shimmers forth- totally
unpredicatable and completely independent of any localized considerations-
it's emergent to the max, dude. But the garbage on the lawn, and the
repressed guilt and fearful hatred of those who put it there, that still
seems real enough.

But the message cannot be reduced to any simple understanding of the parts
from which it is assembled, any more than Pynchon's mind can be evinced
from a study of his works. There is no algorithm which has been iterated
that can be reiterated, given enough data and time, to allow recreation of
the whole from some priviledged starting vantage point. This desire for
understanding and control of the text is a wistful pipedream; not one of
Pirate's but more like one of Magritte's. Even if Pynchon were talking, it
would be futile. The emergent message requires another vital contribution-
some personal kryptosam from the imagination of the reader- in order to be
understood...and we are, after all, different, aren't we?

>                Some brief thoughts about Mrs. Quoad and the crazy candies
>drill.  Does it advance the plot?  Does it develop character?

Dixon doesn't seem to think so. But then he'd be the first to try one.
Vond, however, might approve of the drill. Last I heard, though, he was
negotiating with Takeshi and DL for a good custom made back brace.


>                On the level of the subtext, ay there's the rub, there are
>lots of other things happening.....[snip]
> I guess this makes me what Terrance has dubbed those who believe this
>axiom, a Subtextualist.

And what does it make Mort Saul and Lenny Bruce, submarine captains with
comic torpedoes?  Do you think you got all the details right, fella? How
many of those Rothschilds ever crawled around on their bellies in the
Warsaw ghetto?  Yes, Robert was gassed at Auschwitz, but do we know the
contents of the Rothshilds' portfolio? Krupp was a bad guy, no doubt, but
what about Napoleon? Like you said, there are books and there are books,
and some parts of some books seem more important than others. Every group
has its share of passed over and its share of elect, but the whirligig's
still 'a spin. Who can say where any of us will be when it has come full
gyre?

> This is a friendly note to the list.  It doesn't take on the
>weight of a paper to be published.  I will field friendly debate and
>questions.  I will not answer hostile attacks or character assassination.

>                 Charles Hollander


That's fine. But you might take care to remind that dummy sitting on your
lap to give you your voice back, O.K. Mister?

jody porter.