pynchon-l-digest V2 #1610

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:42:40 -0700

> 
> These readings have never been advanced on Pynchon-L as the only
> possible or proper way to read these novels.  Instead, they have been
> suggested as possible interpretations that might be considered along
> with many other possible interpretations of GR, COL49, and V. --
> both/and, not either/or.  No other interpretation is excluded and to
> say otherwise is a mischaracterization of what Charles Hollander,
> Dave Monroe (and the critics he quotes), I (and the critics I've
> quoted), and others have actually written here.
> 

I don't think it's a question so much of whether or not The Holocaust, or
the enigma of The Kennedys (including Joe's isolationism and "off the
record" arguments for appeasement, even while acting as America's official
representative to the U.K.) are in GR, or, for that matter, whether or not
the coming U.S. misadventure in Vietnam forms a thematic thread of V. Of
course such references can be found in those texts.

[The question of The Kennedy Assassination as a frame for Lot 49 is a more
controversial act of interpretation, however, striking for its originality,
and, contrary to jbor's post, for its *inclusiveness.* That is, Hollander's
underlying premise forces him to interpret all the references in a
consistent manner, at the risk of being incorrect, which, given Oedipa's
dilemma, is ironic, indeed.

Of course, Hollander could be correct in every aspect of his interpretation-
all the references pointing to a JFK conspiracy could have been intended by
the author- except that Hollander's final conclusion might be 180 degrees
off. That is, maybe Pynchon is saying "despite the temptation of seeing the
clues as a reference to a JFK conspiracy, such an interpretation is as
delusional as Oedipa accepting the reality of T------O." For that matter,
triangulation might be a reference to the semiotics of *Charles* Pierce.
Instead of *seeing* the assassination of JFK in LOT 49, maybe Pynchon is
using (god help us) the assassination of JFK "as a metaphor." I.e., maybe it
is equally valid to see LOT 49- semiotics, cybernetics, mutuality- in the
need to find a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, whether or not there is
one to find.]

The more important question, I think, is whether or not the books themselves
support the notion that there is some underlying causative process for all
these events, that they might be inevitable on a deeper level than just the
intentionality of the usual suspects conveniently blamed for them, or,
whether the books suggest that those events could have been avoided. That
would include events of a similar nature in the future, and, what role the
books themselves might be playing w/r/t to such avoidance.

If such horrors and mistakes could have been (or might still be) avoided- by
what means? Do the texts tell us? Is "keep cool but care" gonna do it?
However, if there is no avoiding them, beyond mere detail, what difference
does it make if the referenced horrors are *central* to the texts or not?

In another vain, relativism is "inherent to history," or at least the
recording of history, but so what? Why should lack of ultimate objectivity
cause one to lose the name of action? It didn't stop Dixon.

jody

p.s.: Pitt and Pliny say, "Why use bait when you can lob grenades?"

"...And you too."