No CIA in Lot 49

Fri Aug 17 08:50:17 CDT 2001

Standing not for the agency you think, but for a
clandestine Mexican
 outfit known as the Conjuracion de los Insurgentes 
Anarquistas, traceable back to the time of the
 Flores Magnon brothers and later briefly allied with 
Zapata."
 (Lot 49, Ch. 5, p. 119)

This is Mexican history. The fact that P references
Mexican History and names some of the important men
involved may tell us something about P's politics.
Mexican history and politics and U.S. American history
and politics are entangled, but it is more than a
stretch to argue that P wants us read this reference
to Mexican History and Politics as an encrypted
message about the CIA's (George Bush) murder of JFK. 

In fact, it's quite obvious what it is P is
referencing here. Hollander does the research, but
rather than take into account what  P's own text has
to say about Mexican/ U.S. American history and
politics (the anarchist/revolution and the
oligarchist/miracle) he decodes the names (the name
Zapata, as anyone who has ever read a JFK/CIA book
knows, links George Bush to the Bay of Pigs and JFK
and CIA and Oil and the Vatican and Gold and Nazis and
so on…. ) and by "misdirection" takes us out of the
book and into his own extensive "conspiracy history"
bibliography. Jesus? Jesus (and I don't mean the son
of God) might be the most popular name in Mexican
history. And Arrabal equals suburb in Spanish and the
CIA is located in a Washington suburb? That's more
than a stretch. Isn't it? 

I have done my own (extensive research) into Pynchon &
Co. I know my way around a library and I 
have a lot of experience reading financial/legal
stuff. Hollander is way off on this too.    

Now, I like Hollander's essays. I have read them all.
I have provided him with comments and suggestions both
on and off-list. I think his essays are very valuable
and I have learned a lot from them and from Mr.
Hollander. And although I know, because I have been
admonished (to put it mildly) off-list by several
regulars that my critique of his essays is unfair,
careless, and hypocritical (again, to put it mildly),
that there are some list members that simply can't
stand to read a post that is critical of Hollander's
essays, I will continue to post my critique.
Obviously, several members of this list have read the
essays (or at least one of them). When I signed up
here the Hollander essays were being discussed. I had
not read them. I was lost. 
Because, as is often the case here, members talked
about the essays but did not cite them, I had no idea
what all the fuss was about. Ignorant and naïve, I
even tried settle a few protracted arguments that I
later discovered were about essays published by Mr.
Hollander. Now I am a seasoned P-lister. I was here
when "Max Was Here." I think Max appreciates my honest
critique of his essays. I know he dislikes flatterers
as much as he hates bullies and detests one-upmanship.

CIA? 

If you have not read this essay, have a look. P has
bigger fish to fry than conspiracy -- JFK/CIA. 

Oklahoma City University Law Review 
                  Volume 24, Number 3 (1999) 
              reprinted by permission Oklahoma City
University Law Review 

             HOW IS PYNCHON RELATED TO THE
                         LAW? 

                      JAY P. MORAN*

Oedipa's clues cast a pall on the ability of
            written language to accurately convey the
truth.
            Pynchon is emphasizing that linguistic
symbols
            can be a trap because of the limitations
that
            these symbols have vis-a-vis reality.
Oedipa's
            journey is supposed to foster our
recognition
            that the world can only be partially
revealed to
            us--and often in destructive ways--through
            language. Thus, "WASTE" is not the sign
for a
            trash receptacle but W.A.S.T.E., an
acronym
            marking the modus by which the
            disenfranchised communicate, and it stands
for
            "We Await Silent Tristero's  

            Empire."44 But to those outside the
Tristero, the
            "WASTE" containers are merely depositories
            for the unnecessary by-products of a
capitalistic
            society.45 On the back of a bus seat
Oedipa
            discovers the etching "DEATH," which
            becomes "Don't Ever Antagonize the
Horn,"46
            and later she receives an invitation to
join
            "AC-DC," the Alameda County Death Cult.47
            Likewise, Oedipa's husband Mucho is
depressed
            by a metal sign that reads "N.A.D.A.," the
            acronym for National Automobile Dealers'
            Association, but Mucho pronounces it in
the
            Spanish "nada," which means "nothing."48
            "CIA" is not the bureaucratic power center
of
            the United States, but "Conjuracion de los
            Insurgentes Anarquistas," a clandestine
Mexican
            outfit.49 All of these examples are
parodic
            attempts by Pynchon to drive beyond
language,
            to reveal a holistic world that has been
infiltrated
            with temporal signifiers.50 Pynchon reacts
            resistingly to the "either/or"
constructions which
            characterize much of classic scientific
and
            literary theory. In Lot 49 the creative
            juxtaposition of signs and symbols is an
            indictment of language or, by way of
extension,
            of an America that has warped the truth
with
            overly constraining syntactic
structures.51 In
            short, for Pynchon a betrayal has occurred
in
            society, and written language is the
conduit
            through which corporate enterprise and
political
            power have reduced the individual to
            anonymity.52 Society has literally been
            inundated with this corrupt language, to
the
            point where everything has been distorted.
            Pynchon comically makes this point when
            Oedipa is being interviewed on the radio
by her
            husband, disc jockey Mucho Maas: 

               Mucho: "Thank you, Mrs. Edna
               Mosh," he wrapped up, "for your
               eyewitness account of this dramatic
               siege at Hilarious Psychiatric Clinic."

               Oedipa: "Edna Mosh?"

               Mucho: "It'll come out the right way
               ... I was allowing for the distortion
               on these rigs, and then when they
               put it on tape."53

            What the Tristero promises, then, is an
escape
            from disillusionment and a return to
reality. 
                 Pynchon would appear to be about as
close
            as one could get to representing the ideas
of
            Derrida or Foucault in fiction. All of the
            elements are there: power, language,
            contingency. He demonstrates a marked
            skepticism toward the ability of language
to
            convey reality; indeed, language for
Pynchon is
            the conduit through which the
Establishment
            misleads the average citizen into missing
the
            truth. In much the same way that
            deconstructors wield binary oppositions,
            Pynchon cleverly juxtaposes linguistic
symbols
            to emphasize alternative meanings.

In The Crying of Lot 49 Oedipa struggles
            with these same questions. Pierce's legacy
            reveals discrepancies that threaten
Oedipa's
            system of understanding, until she can no
longer
            trust the conventional ways of  

            communication. Her response is to persist;
she
            tries to make sense of it all--to take
what she
            learns about the elusive Tristero and
incorporate
            it into a more enlightened way of
understanding.
            She cannot bear the possibility of an
America
            without the Truth, without the unifying
            transcendence that the Tristero has come
to
            represent. Yet her search becomes so
obsessive
            that she develops a dangerously fragile
state of
            mind. At the end of the novel she is
completely
            uncertain whether her efforts are bringing
her
            closer to the truth or if she is lost in
her own
            solipsistic entrapment. Her totalizing
quest
            becomes a process of uncontrollable
paranoia,
            to the point where her paranoia sabotages
any
            possibility of transcendent discovery:

The paradox for Oedipa, and indeed for
            Pynchon, is that her quest cannot succeed.
The
            central dilemma for Pynchon is how to
            communicate from within a unified field
without
            betraying it to the linear, fragmenting
processes
            of human cognition.55 For Oedipa to be
able to
            decode her clues and discover the symbolic
            Tristero, she must use the cognitive
processes
            which caused the Tristero in the first
place, and
            to use these processes is to deny the
message
            that Tristero represents.56 Thus, at the
end of
            Lot 49 Oedipa is saddled with paranoia,
and,
            like that of the other characters whom she
has
            met during her quest, Oedipa's own
continued
            existence seems impossible.

http://www.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/okla/moran24.htm

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/