Violence ON Demand

[jporter]

> From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>


>> 
>> (Still officially signed off for a while, but since you asked...)
>> 
>> Good question! It probably depends on the reader, but "origin" is the real
>> albino in this word pile. What/who is "the origin" of The Goddess Myth?
>> Because of the uncertainty that there ever was an ancient Goddess Myth, it,
>> like proto-Indo-European (but even more tenously) can only be inferred from
>> the pieces and creative aggregation of same, and the whole issue is suspect.
>> Forget about authorial intention, does the seeming presence of The Goddess
>> in V. act as a corrective to those whose interests lie in finding evidence
>> for The Goddess, irregardless of whether or not she reigned hegemonic in the
>> distant past? Or, does her symbolic presence in V. merely lend support to
>> the anthropological theory of her exisitence?
> 
> Posted by O' back in November when we were reading Chapter 2
> part II: 
> 
> http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/reviews/ancient-goddesses/

Shalizi is a mad and arrogant genius, probably from another planet
altogether. He concerns me, though. I think he retreated into the embrace of
science because he judged the other side of the divide to be lacking
efficacy. When have we ever promised efficacy? He is still so young, and you
know what they say about stars that burn bright.
 
>> 
>> I tend to think that, surprise, surprise, from the textual point of view, it
>> doesn't make any difference. The *farcical* aspects of the text, e.g., The
>> Playboys, Fina herself, undermine any serious interpretation of the overall
>> symbolism. It's strictly jazz. No tune is sacred and all are available. Let
>> the man blow!
> 
> Again, this is the postmodernist way of looking at those
> *farcical* aspects. And that's a great way to read those
> Pynchonian  texts, as McHale, Weisenburger, and many more
> have, 

Just for the record, pard, I haven't read those dudes and don't expect to.


>but the Playboys and St. Fina need not undermine or
> subvert a serious interpretation of the symbolism, in fact,
> we need to read these as not simply and only subversive, but
> any overall, grandiose scheme flies in the face of critical
> wisdom.
> My reading of P says, that if we do not read these farcical
> and surreal and parodic and fantastic elements of the text
> as more than subversive, undermining any serious
> interpretation of the text,  the novel collapses, as several
> of P's best critics have demonstrated, and we are left with
> less than flaccid satire.

Critical wisdom...hmmm. Does critiquing the critics- this second and third
order criticism- make the text appraised more interesting for you? (Just
asking) By the way, I enjoy watching the text collapse, or to keep it
consistent, melt slowly. Isn't it designed to melt? Doesn't that make it
more precious while deflating windbags (me included), who blow too much?
Doesn't it melt too fast if you don't "keep cool" about meanings and
meanderings? [It's about here that I usually invoke my "the text is like
tinkerbell- you have to believe," analogy, but, it was't that good first
time]. 

By the by the way, I think Dave Monroe's post on "Coolness" citing MacAdams,
et. al., was enlightening: coping mechanism with teeth. Sort of a black
version of Guinness in _A Bridge Over..._. I don't necessarily agree with
any of that, but I find it interesting.
 
> Sonny Boy blow! 
> 
> http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/lyrics/
> 
> Van the Man provides a lot of the notes that are in the wind
> in these P texts.

I can listen to Van anytime. Good choice.
 
>> I'm not so sure Benny is innocent.
>> 
>> jody
> 
> Well, he has a contract,  not only with the Patrol,  to kill
> alligators, but with the alligators, tit for tat. This is an
> example of what I am talking about. When did Benny sign that
> contract? The one he signed under the alligator paw print.
> The moon is not working for him with Fina, well it almost
> does, when she "turns the other cheek", but Benny needs a
> passive (like the good doctor) lover, she can neither fight
> back nor come on to him. When Fina presses her head against
> Benny he gets a (no, not a hardon, he gets these by the moon
> and with the mechanical brides only--Rachel at the job
> placement, Lucile here sliding on her ball bearings)
> headache. I wouldn't discount that symbolism, but again, I
> might be paranoid.
 
It's a farce, man, don't let them get you asking the wrong questions. Miles
Davis said it for me with that, "So What?"

http://www.theconnection.org/archive/2000/10/1027b.shtml

jody

Must really sign off now.