text and context (was Re: Benny's Job (2)

[Dave Monroe]

Very quickly, as I don't have The Crying of Lot 49 at
hand.  Off the top of my head, based on those
collarless suits The Paranoids wear, among other, even
more explicit references, TCOL49 is set post-British
Invasion America.  Taking The Beatles' first "Ed
Sullivan Show" appearance (February 9th, 1964) as the
beachhead for this "invasion," not to mention "common
wisdom" here, Stateside, that the Fab Four might well
have filled JFKs spot in the collective American
heart, TCOL49 is definitely set post-assasination. 
Which, again, is generally taken as so significant in
US history of the era that "common wisdom" says that
every American alive at the time and capable of doing
so remembers where they were when they heard the news.
 That is, pretty damn significant.  Add to that the
conpiratorial atmosphere of the novel and the
seemingly improv "assasination" staged therein, well
... well, again, allusion.  I have my own reservations
about, disagreements with, Hollander's Lot 49 paper,
but, having had them with Hollander himself, well, I
still think there are many interesting, useful,
releevant, and compelling observations therein. 
Again, ecumenicism.  I do try to conserve both baby
and bathwater when I can.  And, rest assured, I feel
your sorrow, cocodrillo tears or no ...

Ta ...


--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> ----------
> >From: <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
> >
> 
> > But speaking of Kennedy, who indeed isn't
> mentioned
> > explicitly in TCOL49, despite the setting of the
> book
> > and the events and apparent concerns therein. 
> Here's
> > of course where we differ on the notion of
> significant
> > exclusions, jbor.  I--and, in his own way,
> > Hollander--might well read such glaring exclusions
> as
> > significant in the sense of pointing TO said
> > exclusion.  You--and, in his own way,
> Terrance--read
> > them as pointing AWAY from them.
> 
> The difference (and it is a large one imo) being,
> perhaps, that _GR_ is set
> in 1944-45 in Europe and directly narrates the
> wartime experience (and
> precedents to same) of a diverse set of characters.
> Now, if _Lot 49_ were
> explicitly set in mid- to late 1963, and Dallas,
> Texas was one of the
> settings therein, and the characters or plot
> revolved around the White House
> or Presidential roadshow or the CIA or L.H. Oswald
> (cf. _DeLillo's wonderful
> _Libra_), then I would agree that the absence of any
> reference to the
> assassination of JFK in the text therein would be a
> glaring one, and thus
> significant. Such as it is then, I don't find the
> *complete* "absence" of
> reference to those events to be either glaring or
> significant.
> 
> But, and I know I probably should just bite my
> tongue and let sleeping dogs
> lie (how sad it is that what is intended as
> discursive engagement is
> perceived as merely an attempt to "set upon" you),
> if we're talking about
> contemporary contexts then surely the Tonkin Gulf
> Resolution and all those
> U.S. troops jetting off Vietnamwards would more
> likely be the "legacy
> America" in _Lot 49_ rather than _V._, wouldn't it?
> 
> I agree with what Terrance, Kai and Paul have said
> about Charles Hollander's
> work by the way, which is not to disdain or diminish
> it in the least.
> 
> best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/