Religion. Luddites. What a mess.

[Michel Ryckx]

J Suete wrote:

> ... that I think talking about Mr. Pynchon's fiction and not talking about his religion is like talking about Mr. Melville and not talking about his religion, only Mr. Melville's religion, though proportionately complex and heterogeneous, is not nearly as positive or unambiguous. (...)

Can we make something clear (before things gets out of hand)?  A writer
may use ideas he has inherited -hence for instance the elect/preterite
theme in mr. Pynchon's work.  That can mean he is using them as an
illustration -I do not say that it is that way, but we may not cancel
out the possibility. After several readings of his work, it became clear
to me that he is writing about how difficult it is to be man (as in
mankind) and his work may be considered as a mere illustration to that
idea.  If religious ideas can be used, it be so.

As far as I have read mr. Melville's books, his description of the
Galapagos Islands may apply to a 'religious' kind of feeling.  For a
non-American religion in America seems to be everywhere and so it will
inevitably pop up in its literature.  Though I can not imagine people
actually 'believing' (Lat.: religare = accepting without argument), that
has never stood in the way for appreciating mr. Pynchon's work.

On the other hand, if you mean by 'religious' things the need, or a
search for a certain harmony, then I can agree.

Does mr. Pynchon have to be a technocrat?  Must he be a cartographer? 
The two questions are equally superfluous.

Besides: (it saves me an email): it is OK to be a Luddite. It is OK to
be frightened by a fundamental change of circumstances and revolting
it.  That has nothing to do with terrorism.

I sincerely hope I made myself clear, but an email seems to be forcing
to say things in shorthand.

Kindly,
Michel