MDDM Decadence

[Terrance]

Monica Belevan wrote:
> 
> There is a separate understanding of ´´ decadence´´ in the 19th century,
> best personified by the French poetes maudits.
> 
> It is an aesthetic understanding of decadence, a certain macabre allure for
> idealized dark. I think this perceptual understanding of the term, and not
> the Websterian definition( Webster dictionary defintion, that is, and not
> the poet Webster, ´´ much possessed by Death´´, who is, himself, fittingly
> decadent), is what Pynchon´s prose buys into.
> 
> Some of his characters and situations are very representative of this
> particular periphery of vision: Blicero, with his Rilkean affectation, La
> Jarretiére as a porcelain lola, the complete canon for schlemilhood...
> 
> --Monica


Interesting,and right on to a point,  but I can't quite figure out how
your definition applies to the use of the term at M&D.275 by the RC. I
think, as a close reading of V. will prove, that your definition is in
fact only one that Pynchon applies in his fiction. The use of the term
by the RC strikes me as very similar to the use of it by Henry Adams.
Adams, as I have argued here for some time, is the most influential text
of TRP's early career. Of course, the definition I mentioned, that is, a
move toward non-humanity, is a big one in all of Pynchon's novels. 

Of course, as you know, there begins in the 18th century a stream of
literature on the decline of western civilization. Now, whatever
misgivings one may have or may entertain on this or that special
argument, one can not deny that the theorists, poets, or whomever,
overall, have a case. On the other foot, the period, as M&D makes
obvious if we don't know much about the history of technology and
science (Mumford is pretty good on this) is that the same period also
experienced and indeed may be characterized as an exuberantly expansive
period for science, invention, innovation.  Of course this science is
not quite what P decries and condemns. Exuberance? Excessive hubris? The
total and absolute control over nature? But, while this has brought with
it dark clouds and electricity, it has also produced increases in the
standard of living, health, comfort, mass education, social
consciousness and responsibility and so on. And again, while one may sit
in the corner and gnash teeth or smash the founding fathers or fellow
P-listers for their apparent apologetics for the grossly offensive
practices and sins of our great grand parents (that's Adam and Eve or
Washington, George and Martha),  one can't simply deny that the
progessivists also have a case. This conflict 

(we started with silly pronouncements about how P lays into the founding
fathers of this Nation. Who? This is an academic's argument. It sounds
good because everyone is saying it, but where is the textual support.
There is none. It's popular these days to smash the founding fathers.
So, go ahead, but can you argue that TRP is smashing them too? Thus far
Doug has failed to smash poor George, Tommy the surveyor seems
unsmashable, and Ben Franklin hasn't done anything to convince this
reader that he's a founding father worthy of a good smashing. The best
we've heard on his being smashable is that he can be connected to the
Grid. . So far we have had Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. I happen to
disagree with both Jbor and Doug. Washington is a cartoonish character
(not a Brian McHale defines the cartoon in Pynchon, but as Tony Tanner
does) and  a minor one at that. He doesn't do a hell of a lot in this
book. He talks and smokes pot and makes joaks)

of interpretations leaves in its churning wake the adumbrated cast away
question, that is, the question about how a civilization may advance and
decline at the same time. Well, from my reading of Pynchon, i.e., the
SDB passage at 275 is about the decline. And the what follows, the drama
of Martha, George, Dixon, Mason, Gershom, is about the advance. All the
players being the preterit actually, the world simply spins it wheels.
Of course there are S&M relations. This can't be helped in Pynchon's
world. But, it's when that nasty eschatological fulfillment is
introduced that problems begin. That's when Weissmann, the sadistic and
decadent bureaucratic/saint becomes a terrible monster and god. 
I read all of the crank theorists, like Norman O. Brown, Graves,
(exceptions are Weber, Henry Adams) as just silly ideas that fill a
novel of ideas and make wonderful, if difficult, satire. Death of a
Salesman is a tragedy. CL49 is not, neither is V. (where Joachitic
history serves as one example of a silly idea made beautiful fiction) ,
GR, VL, M&D.