A sketch of Pynchonian politics

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane O' Sweet" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: A sketch of Pynchonian politics


>
>
> Phil Wise wrote:
>
> > > Phil Wise wrote:
> > >
> > > Of Slothrop, the narrator notes,  "so well have They busted
> > > the sod praries of his brain, tilled and sown there, and
> > > subsidised him not to grow anything of his own...", while
> > > all of us, "as long as we can see them, stare at them, those
> > > massively moneyed, once in a while. As long as they allow us
> > > a glimpse, however rarely. We need that. And how they know
> > > it - how often, under what conditions...".   The narrator,
> > > then, does not just restrict his observations to the
> > > characters, but brings in the world outside the text,
> > > suggesting that his readers are similarly susceptable.
>
> Jane wrote:
> > > hmmmmmmmmmmm, this is a big looking glass & a very big hole,
> > > Alice.  I doubt I'm going to follow the rabbit.
>
> Phil replied:
> >
> > Follow what you like: Pynchon strategically deploys the word "us" at
various
> > points in the text while his narrator talks directly to the reader.  The
> > reason the Rocket transcends time and space at the novel's end is so
that
> > Pynchon can include, by implication, the "us" that existed under Nixon
> > (Richard M Zhlubb) in America - the present outside the text at the time
of
> > the novel's publication.  Their nuclear bomb could have hit America at
any
> > time...
>
> Thank you very much Phil. I think it will be best if we
> begin with the inside/outside the text and the YOU and the
> WE or US addressed in GR.
>
> In the end, what I will argue is this: Your conclusion, that
> Pynchon is anti-capitalist was supported by two claims I
> think are not supported by the texts. First, that Pynchon is
> something of a Marxist. Second, the System of GR is
> totalitarian, it celebrates markets, it is the object of
> Pynchon's harshest satire, ergo Pynchon is a Marxist (though
> with some slight reservation) and an anti-capitalist. ANd
> that if he were to write about it (and you are not sure if
> he has or has not in M&D) he would  take an
> anti-globalization position.
>
Hi Jane O'

Some clarification.  My conclusion, strictly, was not that Pynchon is
anti-capitalist.  If I wanted to support this, I'd have to be very careful
to identify what I meant by "capitalist", for one thing.  What I concluded
was that Vineland and GR critique a multifacited and complex system, which
(in the incarnation depicted in GR) uses markets and corporations to help
promote the absolute power of a "They", and in Vineland uses an evolving
system of political control to promote same.  Having said this, I don't want
to underplay the connection between political and economic control, or to
suggest that there are no political control structures manifest in GR or
economic ones in VL.

Also, my final conclusion does not imply that Pynchon is anti-globalisation,
but something a little more modest: that the critique of The System in these
two novels should give us pause before attempting to free a system that
seems to be "a celebration of markets".  In other words, the political
philosophy Pynchon develops in these novels may be applicable to events we
are faced with today.

Before you accuse me of being disingenuious, I should add that I do think
that Pynchon's politico-literary project is left wing, and has grave
suspicions of capitalist institutions and the US national Government,
insofar as they promote the absolute power of unaccountable elites.  I think
the novels understand that the category of politics has to be examined in
everything from personal acts through to religious belief systems.  I think
he would like for ordinary people to be able to realise democratic processes
that avoid the pitfalls of the various left wing movements Vineland traces,
and that this involves democratising all these categories of politics.  I
think he believes this is possible, but takes pains to emphasise the
enormity and adaptfulness of the power systems that prevent it.  This is my
personal view, based on my readings of these novels.

So, I wouldn't claim Pynchon for Marx, although my wording might have been
misleading on that score, and others might disagree.  But Marx was and is a
major figure in the history of the left, and a basic version of one of the
major platforms of Marxism - that there is an unjust domination of one class
of human beings by another and that economics is an important key to that
domination - can be shown to be supported.  Various details after that may
or may not be shared, although I think Pynchon's texts suggest that Marx's
providential view of history (any such view, actually) is deeply misguided.

> Some preliminary stuff:
>
>
>
>  Nixon is outside of the text, but he is satirized inside of
> the text so that the reader *may* be able to draw some
> conclusions about Pynchon's attitude about Nixon circa 1970.
>
> I think it will be helpful if we turn to a few critical
> studies. You mentioned both Hite and Baker. I will address
> both. When I speak of Pynchon here, I am speaking of the
> "implied author" as defined by Wayne Booth in Rhetoric of
> Fiction. I will also draw on Brian McHale, specifically,
> Chapter 4 of Contrcucting Postmodernism.
>
> But I'll wait to do so. If you have any objection/comment,
> let me know.

Cool.  Please proceed at will.

>
> Even the narrators have parts in the S&M drama. Both with an
> imagined reader, the characters, each other, the implied
> author, and the
> reader.
>
> Sometimes they are dominant and sometimes they play victim
> to the naratee or another narrator or character or even
> their own stories. Some of the narrators work for Them,
> are henchmen or masters in the "System" and they will quite
> frequently address an imagined reader, mislead him
> or tell him lies or tell "tall tales," or tell
> ridiculous paranoid parodies, or give bad advise, or insult,
> or mock the reader's "bookish" reflexes. And of course what
> the implied
> author mocks relentlessly, the proclivity for patterns and
> systems
> and "cause and effect," the reduction of Diversity to
> Binarity.

Agree with the last part; await further information on the first.

>
> "Ideas of the opposite..."GR.48
>
> Also, in addition to the "YOU" that is addressed in
> GR, there is a  "WE" or "US" that is addressed.
>
> This "We-Address" often makes the naratee and the narrator
> accomplices or
> supporters of the Masters or Henchmen of the System or of
> the System itself  or a defender of a character that has
> been a victim at some point but is now a victimizer.
>
> "Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the
> children of God."
> --Jesus
>
Phil