Sontag, "Happenings"

[Dave Monroe]

Judith (or do you prefer Judy?), everybody, for that matter, do keep in
mind that those excerpted texts I post from time to time do not
necessarily reflect the views of the management, much less me (although
I do often agree with Sontag, I'm finding).  Just posting the Pynchon
Digest condensed version of things I stumble upon that seem relevant, is
all ...

Actually went to an alleged "happening" last night, had Against
Interpretation on me (a costume prop of sorts), and, lo and behold,
Sontag's essay thereupon was right after the one on Life Against Death
(and I do think SSs [!] take in AI on NOBs LAD has some resonance with
might well be TRPs in at least GR), so ...

So, while I'm not much concerned to take up Sontag's argument on her
behalf, I would note that I think her characterization of "protagonists
of great comedy" as "underreacting," having "something of the automaton
or robot in them" is a fair one, at least for the examples she gives,
and then some.  It might not apply in each and every comedic instance,
to each and every comedian, but ...

But I think it certainly applies to much comedy, many comedians, the of
her milieu, which was largely Pynchon's, V.'s as well.  Cinema,
television, theater, literature, postwar, intellectual, academic.
Cartoons (all those falling anvils, safes, pianos), the Theater of the
Absurd, black comedy (Dr. Strangelove ..., I think, is esp. relevant),
recall here Thomas' earlier observation, if I might parphrase him as
riffing on Adorno, about the possibility of comedy after Auschwitz, even
...

One of the things I've been interested in is situating those Pynchonian
texts in their contexts, cultural, political, whatever, and those
condensations I've been posting recently, esp., are offered as sort of
archaeological cross-sections (many, in particular, in the wake of
Terrance's postings on religion 'n' Pynchon, esp. Brown 'n' religion 'n'
Pynchon and/or science 'n r 'n' P).  Think these are resonant texts,
ones which, whether or not they might have directly influenced Pynchon
(Graves, Brown, Wiener, certainly, maybe even Marcuse, Sontag), are
nonetheless what was "in the air" ca. V., or GR or ...

But I would point out--and maybe Otto, at least, will agree to some
depth with me on this as well--that we're ALL "reacting to Mr. Pynchon's
work"--to any given work, text, what have you--"througfh other writers,"
works, texts, and so forth, "vicariously" or otherwise.  Whether or not
we're familiar with the critical apparatus engendered by any given--by
any--text, author, whatever, we nonetheles bring expectations,
attitudes, theories, even, developed through our experience(s0 of, with
other texts, authors, whatever ...

Some even make a point of not being familiar with the so-called
"secondary" literature, though I would point out that, in responding to
any given text, work, whatever, even on, say, a listserve, one is
experiencing, contributing to that critical apparatus.  Me, I tend to
look at it as all part of the conversation, and can't help but remark
that, if any given text is "complete" in and of itself, why then the
inevitable, interminable discussion thereof (and this is a good thing in
my book), but ...

But how do I "feel" about Mr. Pynchon's work?  Me, I likes it, I likes
it a lot.  How do you feel about it?  But there's an awful lot about it
that I'm not sure I understand all too well, and an awful lot more that
I just plain don't understand, period.  An awful lot I, like a whole
lotta others, maybe even just about everybody, might never understand.
Working on it, but it seems just too much a task for any single person
(and I'm about as single as they get), so ...