pynchon-l-digest V2 #1610

[Paul Mackin]

I think I'm much in accord with Jody's points. Why is it important to try to
decide upon specific  socio-polico-historic  meanings in P's words?  Unless of
course P can be seen as offering some kind of wise solution whereby similar
horrors might be avoided in the future. Not a likely possibility I would think.
P is enormously adept in picking holes in the social fabric--does so with great
verve and esthetic effect--but is he any more endowed by nature  than the rest
of us for plugging such holes in any useful and effective way?.

Think I might have once suggested to Charles H. in these pages that in his next
project he ought to  consider shifting his emphasis just slightly--from WHAT he
believes  P is portraying for us  by way of  specific unsavory events of
American history past, to the very related question of WHY he, Charles, and
other p-readers are so attracted to and seem to feel so good about making this
type of speculation--as if the acceptance of such interpretations could have any
social utility despite the rather apparent fact that P's presumed intentionality
or our acceptance of it is unlikely to result in any change for the better in
the next historic go around (Jody's point I believe). . I felt that much of what
C. had previously written would serve as prime material for such a project. May
we reasonably  assume that Charles' absense from the p-list in recent months can
be explained  by his being too busy and otherwise occupied carrying out  this
new work?

                                        P.
jporter wrote:

> > 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."