pynchon-l-digest V2 #1844

[CyrusGeo at netscape.net]

Doug Millison wrote:
"Given Pynchon's attraction to history and the extraordinary attention 
he pays to the historical material that he works with, I've wondered 
why he didn't choose to write history, and synthesize a worldview 
that way."

Doug partly answers that himself later on, but I would like to add a few thoughts:
To write history is to take sides. There is no such thing as an objective history/historian. Everything is always seen through a filter. Some filters are less opaque than others, but still opaque. And why, pray thee, good sir, would Pynchon want to synthesize a worldview, when he can shift between worldviews (which he does), thus presenting a much more complete and much less distorted picture (or, rather, a multitude of pictures)? Besides, Pynchon uses history in order to reach way beyond it, to something much more universal, fundamental, timeless and interesting: human nature.
It is in that spirit, I believe, that Pynchon presents history as "at best a conspiracy, not always among gentlemen, to defraud" (GR, 164) and "not woven by innocent hands" (GR, 277).

Cyrus
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/