pynchon-l-digest V2 #1683

[Doug Millison]

rj:
>The latter negative
>comparisons are actually personal opinions, arguable at the very least, if
>not entirely gratuitous.

Imagine that. Personal opinions in a daily newspaper book review!

It's probably pointless to point out that Locke, writing in '73, 
didn't have the advantage (?) of 27+ years of GR studies.   It can be 
fun I guess to go back and trash something somebody wrote a long time 
ago in light of the far more sophisticated perspective we have today, 
or by applying to a newspaper article the standards you would apply 
to an academic work, if you go in for that sort of sport -- there's a 
perennial magazine story topic, retrieving and ridiculing negative 
reviews that greeted works of art that are now considered 
masterpieces; of course, Locke got a lot right vis-a-vis GR and 
certainly recognized Pynchon's stature and the importance of his 
second novel.

Back to a question I posed the other day:
  I think Locke is
very perceptive with regard to the way he sees Pynchon using German
history to explain American history.  If, as rj has suggested -- "His
castration -- romantic embellishment or wishful thinking on Pynchon's part
- -- seems to me to represent the notion of "justice" in Pynchon's novel far
more clearly than Nurnberg (or, for that matter, civil suits and the
perpetuation of hatred and vilification)" -- Major
Marvy somehow represents a sort of hero -- an excellent
representative of the heartless bastards who actually manage the U.S.
military-industrial complex, then and now,  in my opinion --  who or
what does Blicero/Weissmann represent? What statement is Pynchon
making about Nazi Germany -- and about the individuals, governments,
corporations who supported their project and profited from it -- in
his portrayal of that diseased, deluded, death-wishing,
technology-worshipping predator?

P.S. I'll continue to disagree with MalignD about Pynchon's status as 
visionary artist. It's a very easy argument to make and sustain, that 
Pynchon has seen as clearly into the heart of the contemporary 
condition, and has expressed it powerfully and beautifully, and has 
offered us the opportunity to revisit our history and politics and 
science and technology.  And, the notion that a work of art can't 
serve more than one master is an interesting enough idea, but remains 
dogma nonetheless; any work of art worthy of being called art works 
on several levels, calls up complex and contradictory responses, and 
arises from a complex of motivations and intentions and urges on the 
part of the artist. Reduce that to "esthetics" if you wish, but as 
with all such reduction, you lose a great deal in the process, 
especially in the case of Pynchon's novels where historical and 
political matters matter so much.
-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>