SLSL Intro "Chicago School"

[jbor]

on 9/11/02 7:15 PM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

> 
>> No, he says that "...both movements "placed too much emphasis on
> youth...", which
>> is a different thing entirely, and which I'm sure you're perfectly well
>> aware of.
> 
> Actually he says "both forms of the movement placed too much emphasis on
> youth."

Yes. Referring back to "the Beat movement" (p.8).

> That would be the Beat and hippie movements, both forms of one greater
> movement, very much "the same, only different."

Yes. The "hippie resurgence" and the Beat movement itself. And P. sez the
"hippie resurgence" only resembled the Beat movement "for a while" (p.9).

[...]

> I think the "puerility angle" is referencing his "imperfectly developed
> attitudes about sex and death."

As well as the observation that both movements, hippie and Beat, "placed too
much emphasis on youth". Clearly, the "I bring up" construction links back
to the main clause in the preceding sentence, as I'm sure you realise.

Your quibbles are pretty silly, all in all.

best





> He obvioulsy liked the
> leftward movement. Why else feel "nostalgia and vindication" ten years later
> when the hippies resurged?  Even if "only for a while."  And "vindication."
> That's a strong word.  It implies he felt good about what he'd learned and
> how he'd evolved.
> 
>> It's pretty obviously a direct criticism.
> 
> 'Tis not obvious.
> 
>> In fact, he segues from
>> the movements back into his early stories via what he describes as the
>> "puerility angle". He's actually using the term "puerile" to characterise
>> the sensibility of both the Beat/post-Beat and hippie generations.


> "Youth of course was wasted on me at the time, but I bring up the puerility
> angle again because, along with imperfectly developed attitudes about sex
> and death, we may also note how easily some of my adolescent values were
> able to creep in and wreck an otherwise sympathetic character." (SL, 9)
> 
>> But I do wonder why he notes that "Youth of course was wasted on me at the
>> time ... " He's not quite wallowing in it, but there's a definite note of
>> self-pity there at least.
> 
> He probably feels the movement was wasted on him because he was "puerile,"
> he was  "an unpolitical '50s student,"  with  "imperfectly developed
> attitudes about sex and death"; and he didn't know yet there was a "way of
> communicati[ng]" between class lines.   ("Who knew?")
> 
> He's done a fine job communicating since, though.  All the brotherhood of
> man, and "...at one with...." stuff from Gravity's Rainbow--makes all the
> more sense now.   Not sure it does any good though--Look at us, Jbor,
> fighting with one another like we do, wedged and divided even on the common
> ground of Thomas Pynchon.  It's enjoyable though.  And good exercise.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Barbara
> 
> PS:
> 
>>> The success of the "new left" later in the '60s was to be limited by the
>>> failure of college kids and blue-collar workers to get together
> politically.
>>> One reason was the presence of real, invisible class force fields in the
> way
>>> of communication between the two groups."
>>> (SLSL, 6 -7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>