Pynchon the gentle sadomasochist

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> I think McHale would say that in GR for example the reliability of the
> narrators is not usually the center of attention. Rather it is the
> different and inconsistent intersecting worlds of this or that character
> that get the emphasis--which for McH of course is what makes GR
> postmodernist. 

Yes, on Page 250 he says, "All theses spaces, cyperpunk and
post modernist alike, are instances of what Foucault called
"heterotopia," the impossible space in which fragments od
disparate discursive orders (actualized in cyperpunk as
disparate microworlds) are merely juxtaposed, without any
attempt to reduce them to a common order." Oh yes,
Barths.    

Other P books might be different.  The important point
> is that the 1987 book is not in any degree a complete analysis of Pynchon
> or a particular Pynchon work. Pynchon is merely used--though fairly
> extensively--to illustrate general trends in fiction writing. Long
> novels such as V. and GR can be expected to have required many many
> stategies. The second person business is only one of them.
> 
> I'm going to have to finish the book I guess.
> 
>                         P.

Right, as I said to rj, neither of McHale's books are about
GR or Pynchon. Both are excellent studies. I recently
donated 250 books, I didn't part with McHale,  yet. I read a
bit of the Jameson you mentioned, the chapter where he
outlines four different postmodernisms. 


The analysis of technology phase has always been
relatively  easy and has been going on for centuries. 

Popular books always include a chapter at the end
which tells how everything will be all right if the world
will only follow
the authors suggestions. 


Postman's Technopoly, "the loving freedom fighter." Good
book. 

The analysis is Relatively easy, right, because solutions
are relatively impossible. Speaking of the difficulty in
analyzing technological history, I'm now convinced that 
Mumford is another important source for Pynchon.