MDDM Ch. 12 Summary & Notes

[jbor]

davidmmonroe at yahoo.com wrote:

> So you're saying that you DON'T think Pynchon is
> deploying all the various historical elements in Mason
> & Dixon to some effect or another, that it's not worth
> doing the legwork to determine just what of "the"
> historical record (though it strikes me that said
> record is often invoked by Pynchon precisely when it
> is not quite so unanimous ...) is being used here,
> perhaps even how, and so forth?

No.

> It may not be
> necessary, one can read anything in ignorance of all
> sorts of relevant contextual information, of course,
> but ...
> 
> But esp. in light of yr own self-described "trawling"
> in re: the astronomy of M&D?  Again, wish I had the
> time myself, all of interest, even use, to me, at any
> rate.  And thanks as well to Otto in this regard,
> among many, many others (regards, Others).  Don't know
> how you find the time, and we all know just how much
> time I can occasionally find here.  But, really ...
> 
> --- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> davidmmonroe at yahoo.com wrote:
>> 
>> But you still haven't given any indication as to
>> what, if anything, you are specifically referring
> to,
>> disagreeing with
>> 
>>> 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
>>> deploying just what and how ...
> 
> Still don't see how I could possibly be provoking any
> of the following here: "trying to force things into
> them which aren't there at all," "in the interests of
> producing a biased reading, or rewriting, of the
> text,"
> "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."  Again,
> windmills, straw men ...
> 
> But, for the record, historical or otherwise,  I did
> "rewrite," correct my typo there ("deploying") ...

You're making an awful lot of this. I don't think you need to do the
research "first": I think you need to read the text first and then decide on
the scope and directions of your research. At least, that's what I
personally find a more "interesting and worthwhile" way to read a novel. I
also agreed with both Paul and Terrance that with Pynchon's work most if not
all of it is actually there in the text to begin with, and that a good
dictionary, and perhaps a reference book or two, are all that the reader
really requires to unpack it. I don't agree that there is a single, ominous
"Something" that Pynchon is "Doing" in his works, but I note that you did
alter this contention to "Somethings" in a subsequent post, which I don't
have a problem with and which is partly why I was wondering whether you
might have misstated your original position. And, I elaborated on what I saw
as the hazards of an approach where extraneous "research" - in other words,
political, philosophical or religious preconceptions - precede, determine or
otherwise overwhelm - rather than augment - engagement with and appreciation
of the text at hand.

It is a matter of opinion, I admit, and many schools of literary criticism
are actually committed to a particular ideological standpoint, and
incorporate a specific social or political aim within the current milieu as
part of their m.o., and are no less valuable for it. I also acknowledge that
both the author and the reader bring a particular point of view to the
production/performance of the text, and that the text itself might embody
another, or other, points of view, these even perhaps unbeknownst to either
author or reader. I find that keeping these considerations in mind is very
useful when reading any text.

best