Re. the "Slothropite heresy"

[jbor]

----------
>From: <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
>

> The fork in the road in history is history.

Indeed. However, as is clearly evident in all of the novels and stories,
Pynchon is *always* intensely alert to the 'what could have been' (and,
consequently, the 'what could be'), the forks and alternative paths in
history. His reification of the subjunctive mood (a grammatical form which
had largely fallen by the wayside in the English language), overtly
referencing America as a repository ("Rubbish-Tip") for "Subjunctive hopes,
for all that *may yet be true*" (_M&D_ 345), and how "heresies flow like
blood in the bloodstream ... thro' the American quotidian" (522), and the
Indians' "Subjunctive World" as contrasted with "our number'd and dreamless
Indicative" (677) in his most recent novel, stands as testimony to how much
credence Pynchon gives to the alternative forks. It is strange that you seem
to be arguing that history, as it happens (which is the perspective from
which Pynchon's narratives consider it), is somehow predetermined.

> Only Tyrone
> thinks that maybe there is a way back, maybe after total
> destruction brings total anarchy,

Isn't Tyrone's point that the post-War Zone is just such a fork, where
another path forward might be possible (cf. his own symbolic crucifixion at
that madalic crossroads earlier on).

> but Tyrone's thoughts here
> go against everything we know about Pynchon's view of
> history.

Rubbish.

best