Hubert, "Remedios Varo & Benjamin Peret"

[Dave Monroe]

Again, very quickly (a quick dinner at the online
bagel shop here), I've my own quibbles with
Hollander's readings, as he does take particular paths
whilst neglecting others, but those paths are
interesting, compelling, and, I think, relevant,
valid.  Again, my inclination is to map as many
pathways as possible, something that can be done in
reading and rereading (and ...) a text.  Unlike
history.  Negentropic vs. entropic processes?  Anyway
... but I think that essay perhaps relies too much on
that Varro harmonic in order to legitimate a reading
of The Crying of Lot 49 as Menippean, political
satire.  That harmonic might enrich the overall tone,
but that reading, like many others, rigs true enough
with or without it.  Icing, not cake, if I might be
allowed a tropic u-turn here ...

--- Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave Monroe wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, did want Eddins there (The Gnostic Pynchon),
> > that's been bugging me all night, but I only
> quibble
> > with Hollander for not following both forks in the
> > road there (an option one has in a reading, if not
> in
> > history).  
> 
> Why do think he neglected Varo? Could it be because
> his own
> essay need Varro and not
> Varo? Sure, take Varro out. What happens? The essay
> falls
> apart like a house of cards. 
> There is simply nothing in the text that tells us to
> read
> Varo as an allusion to Varro. 
> From Varro Hollander builds the foundation for his
> house or
> Estate. 
> 
> The fork in the road in history is history. Only
> Tyrone
> thinks that maybe there is a way back, maybe after
> total
> destruction brings total anarchy, but Tyrone's
> thoughts here
> go against everything we know about Pynchon's view
> of
> history. But, and you know this from reading Eddins,
> W.
> Slothrop's love of the pigs and the Earth is also
> Orphic
> (gravitational), like the Herero Eric, as opposed to
> gnostic. 
> 
> > Grant's neglect of Hollander's Thelonious
> > Monk/McClintic Sphere article is a glaring
> oversight
> > in his Companion to V.   But I gotta run, so ...
> 
> 
> I think there must be a reason why Hollander is not
> cited by
> other critics. 
> I don't have Grant's V. Companion, but I would guess
> it has
> a pretty extensive Bibliography. It can't be simply
> that
> Hollander takes on the Political Pynchon, I once
> thought
> this was the case, because as you noted in your post
> to
> Paul, there are several full length studies. I do
> think that
> Hollander's work has limited value, aside from its
> being a
> work of art in its own right (Pater), but he fails
> to
> account for the postmodern paranoid condition and
> misreads
> the central fact of P's fiction.


__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/