WARLOCK and Loss

[calbert at tiac.net]

Why is it so difficult for some to imagine that Pynchon may be 
ambivalent with respect to politics? Is not one of the central themes 
of WARLOCK, one which I read echoed in the pages of Pynchon's 
novels, that there are the preterite, the elect and those flitting in the 
zone in between? When the citizens of WARLOCK debate the 
merits of "incorporating", they seem to have no difficulty recognizing 
that the two conditions are NOT at opposite ends of a spectrum, but 
are in fact, different only in "degree".....

I understand that Oakley Hall is not a direct proxy for Pynchon, but 
the objective stance he takes towards the miners' faction strikes me 
as very similar to that taken by P towards the evolution of the politics 
of Frenesi's family....There is an equilibrium to this which I recall 
admiring about Fathers and Sons, and even though Turgenev was 
challenged by critics for what some perceived as a moral neutrality, 
it does appear to be artistically and intellectually more "honest", 
moving beyond mere charicature....


love,
cfa