SLSL Intro "A Couple-Three Bonzos"

[Fergus Ginsberg]

--- MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> The Terry Reilly excerpt is useful for carrying the
> "Intro Not What It Seems" 
> argument about as far as it can go, Pynchon
> replicating Orwell, imitating 
> Reagan, Poindexter, etc.  Useful because it's
> finally so unconvincing and 
> far-fetched.  It proceeds in large part by begging
> the question (a method 
> also used by Hollander, by the way, in his coded
> reading of COL49)--tossing 
> out a dubious premise, then using that premise as a
> basis to further the 
> argument.


Take a look at how the reader-critic twists the word
"unacceptable" into the far-fetched reading. 

P is talking about the unacceptable language in the
tale. 

P says (paraphrase), to the Modern reader (1980s
reader as opposed to the 1950s reader) there is
unacceptable language in the tale. 

One example is when a Mexican is called a "wetback."
This is unacceptable to the modern reader. Why? Is the
Modern reader more sensitive and less tolerant of
these racist words? 

We hope so.  

But that doesn't explain why Pynchon calls it
unacceptable. The word is unacceptable because it a
descriptive term used by the narrator and the narrator
of this tale speaks like TRP. 

TRP talks like Archie Bunker. Even worse because on TV
Bunker never used some of the unacceptable language we
find in the tale. Pynchon says,  it was the way some
people were talking at the time. The language reveals
an attitude toward others (like Mexicans). Pynchon
says he took on this attitude from the culture and the
political institutions he was exposed to, like
JFK/James Bond. 

He apologizes for it. Obviously, Pynchon feels that he
has changed, but he honestly admits that he was not a
saint, he was a typical person in many respects, and
we should not try to erase from his biography what he
admits was a part of his life with far-fetched
readings of his Introduction. 

If Pynchon were pulling our legs, we would not be able
to go to the stories and discover the faults he admits
to in the Introduction. But when we read the tales,
there they are. Pynchon says he wishes he could
attribute that unacceptable language in the tale to
Pig, but the facts are that the language is his own. 

Rather than trying to protect the saintliness of Tom
with absurd readings, why not give him credit for
confessing his sins. Hell, being a Catholic, I'm
inclined to think he needed that sin to do his penance
(GR). 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2