pynchon-l-digest V2 #1794

[Jane]

Doug Millison wrote:
> 
> "Jane"
> "this argument is a misreading of the books or
> because Pynchon is an artist and not a political activist,
> his books are art and not political manifestos"
> 
> That's an opinion not all critics and readers can share. 

Of course, but it's supported by the text and that makes it
a better opinion than those that are not and can not be
supported by the texts. Right? 


The political
> content of Pynchon's fiction has been commented on in article after article
> in the critical literature.  

I'm not suggesting Pynchon's books do not have political
content. Quite the contrary. 



A significant thread in the hostile reception
> of Vineland was that Pynchon laid out so clearly his sympathies with a 60's
> radical political line and the longer history of U.S. labor activism that
> feeds into that line. 

Not sure about that. Can you give examples? This is not
quite what I remember or have read in the critical
literature. 




If Pynchon is only interested in making artistic
> statements, why does he choose again and again to deal with political,
> historical, economic material in his works? 

It's not a matter of his being aPolitical, I'm not
suggesting he is aPolitical at all. He is an artist first. I
don't think that the two are incompatible as some do or that
any hint of the political threatens the aesthetic or that
author's like Nabakov are aPolitical or completely objective
despite their own pronouncements and attempts to maintain
distance or create it or subvert their own subjective
opinions. However, saying that Pynchon includes political
material in his art or that he has sympathy for USA Lefty
politics is one thing, saying that he advocates collective
political struggle is quite another. Sure, even as early as
the short stories and V. P satirizes Power, political
concentrations of corporate/government power, but he does
not write political manifesto or advocate collective
political conflict as is being claimed here. In fact the
master slave, S&M is what he depicts in his fiction. Frenesi
and Brock, victim and victimizer define the other because
they are united.  



Why doesn't he just start from
> scratch and invent characters and settings and political situations instead
> of working with the world that we know?

Not sure what you mean? 



> 
> To state that "collective organized political struggle is debunked in P's
> fiction" eliminates quite a bit of Pynchon's nuance in this regard -- in his
> creation of characters like Leni Pokler and Frenesi, P shows enormous
> sympathy; his fictional context includes the prompts necessary to send us to
> other texts wherein we can read the complex story of the protest movements
> they support. 

Where is the evidence in Pynchon's own texts? 


Pynchon gives us every reason to understand why they choose
to
> act the way they do. The reasons for the failures of the protests they join
> are seen to be complex -- generally, they are co-opted or betrayed by Their
> agents or by forces under Their control.  

The protests are not separate from THEM to begin with. So
THEY are not controlling the Betrayal, the Betrayal is
intrinsic to the relationship. It's Frenesi love of the 
cop with a club, her daughter's fashion is mini-skirts 
coming back and it too is part of the family of Leftys. 


If anything, P's fiction shows us
> that people quite naturally protest against totalitarian governments and
> that their protests often fail because They have overwhelming force at Their
> disposal.  That's bitter commentary on a real-world truth, but it hardly
> amounts to "debunking" organized political struggle.


Even in the religion of the Heretic Puritan Slothrop there
was present Newtonian Physics, an analytical leaning at that
fork in the road. There is no getting away fro this in P's
fiction. The chances were good for diversity, collective
struggle is a death dance, all theater as the stuff Kurt
just posted makes clear. Tough, but that's Pynchon. 


"Wake up to find out that YOU are the eyes of the world...."