MDDM Ch. 12 Summary & Notes

[jbor]

I'd agree with Terrance and Paul here. It's far more interesting and
worthwhile to interpret and evaluate what's in the books, rather than
forever trawling elsewhere and trying to force things into them which aren't
there at all. This is particularly so when the trawling is done in the
interests of producing a biased reading, or rewriting, of the text. Of
course, any reading is intrinsically biased, or subjectivised, but there's a
difference between using the texts to champion some doctrinaire political or
religious viewpoint, meanwhile turning the texts into little more than
polemics, and acknowledging and valuing them for the complex and
multifarious works of art which they are.

But perhaps Dave Monroe's ire was more due to the fact that what lies
beneath big one (and crew)'s zipper has now been exposed?

best


on 6/11/01 6:50 AM, Paul Mackin at paul.mackin at verizon.net wrote:

> I'm wouldn't want to put too much stock in the value of "research" as a
> means of enhancing one's "understanding" of a book like M&D. I'm talking
> about research that is going on while, and is part and parcel of, the
> reading the book.Naturally having a broad knowledge of history and other
> writing gained in advance over the years will enable the reader to derive
> much more from a writer like Pynchon than would be the case without such a
> base.  But, while acquiring bits and bites of specific facts the writer can
> be shown to have drawn on in composition may be satisfying in itself and
> have general eduational value I'd strongly advise divorcing such a project
> from the reading of the book. This doesn't mean one shouldn't have a
> dictionary handy.
> 
> Just a personal opinion obviously.
> 
> P
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:16 AM
> Subject: Re: MDDM Ch. 12 Summary & Notes
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dave Monroe wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, apparently "his" (presuming you mean Pynchon's)
>>> legacy here consists of snide and not all-too-snappy
>>> one liners (like, say, this one) and kicking around
>>> Doug Millison.  Me, I think Pynchon is Doing Something
>>> with all these historical elements here.  Just what,
>>> I'm not quite sure yet (if I, or anyone else, ever
>>> will be), but you gotta do the research first in order
>>> to determine just where and when he's deployiong just
>>> what and how ...
>> 
>> Doing the research may tell you some things. It's certainly not
>> necessary. M&D, like all Pynchon's novels, is not a research project or
>> a encrypted study of history, it's funny and entertaining fiction.
>> Sometimes it's stupid funny and sometimes it's too smart for its own
>> good.
>> A lot of the research Pynchon puts into the books goes to support very
>> intricate
>> and elaborate jokes. These are usually not very funny at all, but more
>> like puzzles.  What's funny is the dialogue when P gets it just right.
>> I think he often takes it from TV and films and plays. Pynchon packs the
>> pages with little known facts and lost or never recorded histories. He
>> includes arcane theories and formulas. He slips in strange tidbits. In
>> one Chapter he might parody several works of fiction or poetry. He
>> layers pastiche. He may include fictions, poems, films, paintings,
>> musical compositions, TV, comic book, letters, newspaper stories,
>> journals, so on and on.  He plays puns against puns. He often makes fun
>> of the sexual proclivities of authors or historical persons.
>> In Chapter 13 of M&D it's difficult to figure out what the hell is going
>> on. Pynchon includes the history of relationships we know nothing about.
>> It's safe to assume, few if any readers of M&D have any previous
>> knowledge of the love affairs of Mason and Dixon and the other
>> historical figures fictionalized in M&D. So why does Pynchon do it? I
>> think it's also safe to assume that no prior knowledge of the history of
>> these affairs is needed or even very helpful.
>