"underlying causative process"

[jporter]

> From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:33:31 -0500
> "underlying causative process"
> 
> Jody says,
> 
> [[[["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."]]]]
> 
> That underlying causative process, the subject of *Gnostic Pynchon* btw, does
> not stand in opposition to the intentionality of the usual suspects that
> Hollander Names. Note, Jody, that it is an **underlying** process that you say
> might be deeper. Hollander goes under the tapestry, to use his metaphor. So
> perhaps you agree that there is something going on under the rose so to speak?

Hmm. By "usual suspects" I believe I was referring to the more sinister
suggestions in GR, e.g., the connections between entities like Ford, "Icy
Eye," etc., and their Nazi counterparts. So, the usual "pynchonian suspects"
would be those corporate cartels, and the elites that transcend
national/political distinctions, etc- THEY might possibly be avoided or
thwarted, perhaps in some respect, because of the books. Perhaps.

By "some underlying causative process," however, I think I was referring to
something deeper, either inherent in nature making the organization and
operation of such predatory cartels inevitable, or, more universally,
Predestination itself- i.e., a causation unavoidable *in priniciple.* The
texts seem to play with either possibility. "It's up to you" is nothing if
not a taunt, isn't it? What exactly is up to me or you? Is it something
which is already "down" to the author? Or, is the author as uncertain about
the effects of the books as I am?

For example, granting Mr. Hollander's version of LOT49 as *the* definitive
reading for a moment, what is it then that's up to me? Is it to write
letters to the editor? or to go out and protest? or to join the underground?
or maybe even the Tristero, if that's my preference? Such would be questions
dealing with efficacy of various actions in a world where action might make
a difference, on the scale of Mr. Hollander's interpretation.

Without the benefit of having my magic eye opened and the whole secret
message of LOT49 revealed to me, however, and setting aside the question of
efficacy for a moment, all the books seem to suggest the futility of
attempting to shape the course of large scale events because of
predestination, or, equally futile, the total inability to predict the
effects of any actions one might engage in order to effect large scale
events, even given the ability to discern the *right* message. Assassination
seems to appeal to a particular breed of paranoid, but leads to highly
unpredictable results, often diametrically opposed to the paranoid's
intentions. 

As each novel is tempting a protagonist to take the plunge into
paranoia-space, by *suggesting* specific links between actions on the
individual scale with specific effects on the universal scale (of the
novel), the reader is offered parables- small acts of decency or kindness or
bravery- as alternatives to such futile and maybe dangerous grandiosity.

But isn't keeping cool and caring, in effect, to become a facilitator for
Those who depend on civility for Their continued control? Granting the
possibility that at least to some degree "we are Them" do the books in
effect advocate for a focus on interpersonal relations- where free will may
be operative- as opposed to large scale grandiosity, which seems- any which
way you might play it- to accelerate the inevitable?

All assuming, of course, that tom was hoping for something more than just a
comfortable income.

jody

 
> OXYRTHYNCHUS PAPYRUS NUMBER CLASSIFIED
> 
> When I consider how my nights are spent, near half my dreams in this dark
> world of books where plot midgets vanish like frightened schnooks and Doper's
> Greed is given up for Lent withdrawing from the whole dark grandiose scheme
> wrapped in a little package in my mind I find the clues, the vision of the
> blind outside the inside labyrinth of dream.
> 
> At every turn, at night's foregathering the dividing walls collapse, the signs
> fade and I am left to Sherlock clewless zones I listen to the song the
> windmills sing I stuff my eyes with wax and retrograde and sleep and dream of
> souls and living stones.
>