answering jody Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1582

[jporter]

> From: Dave Monroe <monroe at mpm.edu>
> Organization: Milwaukee Public Museum
> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:00:04 -0600
>
> 
> Now why the insult here, Jody?  For taking issue with a seeming
> elitism?  For pointing out that one really should not work one's way
> DOWN from an assumption of the "genius" or "vision" or "artistry" or,
> for that matter, "intentionality," "coherence" and/or "self-identity" of
> an author, presumed or otherwise?   This is, indeed, as someone offlist
> pointed out to me, a theological, perhaps Scholastic (Thomas Aquinas was
> mentioned as having precisely argued from the assumption of the "genius"
> et al. of that Divine Author), mode of argumentation.

No insult intended, Dave. I'm sorry if you felt slighted. Two things-
elitism, in my mind, has nothing necessarily to do with economics, although
lack of opportunity can make fulfilment of potential near impossible.
Cornell West's view seems to match with my take on elites.  Second, members
of elites, thus considered, are not necessarily more insulated from
suffering than the preterite.

But if we are to consider GR's use of The Holocaust as imagery, for example,
not to be just artistic exploitation, then the question arises about who the
target of its message is, and what has been its effect, on both the author
and the entire culture.

Lenin might have liked the approach: aim high. It could be that I am being
unfair, maybe it can be construed as "working within the system," or
something,  but that path might end up being strewn with a whole bunch of
rationalizations for priviledge. I'm not so sure of myself in regard to
pinning Pynch and his readership as an elite, but I felt the issue needed to
be raised.

 >And, at any rate,
> again, if anyone wants to invoke such entities, well, please, specify
> what they are assumed to consist of, and specify how any given
> speculation/observation/argument might fly in the face of any such
> assumptions.  But I do think one has to work one's way up to assertions
> of "genius" et al., and here's where that attention to detail, to the
> ineviatble multivocality of language, the inevitable dissemination of
> meaning, and those ineluctable operations of textuality, is important.
> But, really, I see no point to the insult, to any such insults, here ...
> 

Again, sorry for any offense. I must admit, however, proletarian creds
notwithstanding, "you" strike me as a member of a very small minority of
people I would call "the literary elite."

jody