Pynchon & rap

[David Morris]

This Hollander explanation is complete gobblety-goop.  "Total absence" is 
not equal to "not mentioned (only once: Dallas)," AKA alluded to.  Pynchon 
is the master of cyrptic allusions.  These allusions are not "total 
absences."  Sloppy semantics, seems to me.  Aren't professors supposed to be 
more precise?  Or is he being mis-quoted?  Jeezum-Pete!

David Morris

>From: Terrance
>
>Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > --- Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hollander argues that the total absence from the
> > > text has greater meaning than presence. He argues
> > > that P is something of cryptic writer. The less P
> > > alludes to or mentions something the greater its
> > > significance.
> >
> > ... but "total absence" isn't quite right here.
>
>I think it is exactly right. For example, the assassination of JFK is 
>nowhere to be found in CL49. The event is absent, a total absence.
>
>Hollander says,
>
>"Chapter by chapter, step by step, Pynchon leads us to the
>assassination of President Kennedy, without ever mentioning
>the then-recent event directly."
>
>P never mentions it at all. The event is not present in the text.
>
>This total absence is a presence as Hollander reads the
>story. If you go back and read his Pynchon Notes Essay, you
>will discover that after he says that absence is in fact a
>presence in P's works, he never explains what he means. He
>goes into the disinherited theme and the "need" or desire
>to be cryptic. It's being totally absent is what makes it
>the most important thing. Hollander begins by acknowledging
>the total absence of the assassination. Pynchon never
>mentions it directly. Also, what he says is that the word
>Dallas is critical because it mentioned only once. The
>assassination event, in not being mentioned, mentioned not
>once, and only once, but never, is what P wants us to see.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com