pynchon-l-digest V2 #1610

[jporter]

> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> 
> 
> 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?.
> 
If Paul is hinting that "the rest of us" are by necessity required to
define, protect and otherwise repair the social fabric of which we form a
part, rather than relying on some clue, lesson or whatnot uncovered in the
works of tpr, I am in agreement. I think the most important "lesson" which
can be derived from any and all of them is just that.

> 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).
> 
That's most of it. Whatever the possible meanings, is there anything which
can be salvaged from the deconstruction of the text that might "help us?"
Leaving aside authorial intention for moment- i.e., whether the author
intended such potentially beneficial aspects or not- is there anything in
the texts that is worth the trouble of reading, interpreting, bickering
about, other than entertainment? [Entertainment is enough for me, by the
way, anything else is gravy]

My arguments about this topic always seem to lead back to the "spectre" of
elitism, which seems to haunt the texts. [Neither do I have anything against
a "neutral" elitism, which suggests division of labor, not the unequal
division of the surplus value generated from automation, by owners. Maybe it
is here a valid argument for a social significance for the texts "might" be
possible. It also seems like a good place to examine the philosphical
consequences of a confrontation between Objectivism v. collectivism, as it
might be reflected by the texts.  Subjecting the biological phenomenon of
"prions," as an example of extreme individualism- in a semantic field- and
their reality w/r/t the tension between what and how they "are," and, what
The Whole requires of them- for wholeness is a fascinating parallel
discussion. Obvious disclaimer: I know little about either Rand or Marx- but
when has ignorance ever stopped me from speculating?

Hovering over the din of such a confrontation might be a more generalized
discussion of control- its requirement for health (wholeness, if you prefer)
from the molecular to the social scale- the inevitable manifestation of
"elitism" thereby engendered, and/or, the possibilty of choice given that
inevitability.] Because the reality of choice is, by definition, a
requirement of "an entertainment," no? DFW aside.

No one needs to read Pynchon. Likewise, Pynchon could have chosen to write
essays, or run for office, or to publically discuss the social significance
(or lack thereof) of the texts. Whether the author has intended to "be
helpful" or to just entertain, there is no question that his texts- as a
real product: boxtop, image and paying consumer- the whole schmir- insist on
choice as they delimit the necessity, technniques and perversion of control.

If alligators might be willing to suspend their belief in "the contract,"
why not readers?


> 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?

We can only hope.

jody