GR 'Streets' (death and/or afterlife)

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 07:23, Terrance wrote: 
> 
> 
> Paul Mackin wrote:
> > >
> > > The disclaimer and the fear (the Priest sounds afraid) indicate that at
> > > this point in the sermon the priest is preaching THEIR sermon. Doesn't
> > > it?
> > 
> > My inclination is not to try and push logic too far here. The "us"
> > "them" and "we systems are fashioned from the material of Pynchonean
> > fancy. Best to simply stand as still as possible and let the magical
> > language wash over you. In other words, the thing is not going to parse.
> > 
> > P.
> 
> 
> I get you, Paul. That's  excellent advise. The language, the fun of it,
> the wonderfully playful narrative here is brilliant.  Logic is probably
> not the best tool in the box for this job.  But, I still think that a
> little pretzel logic (S~Z has described Pynchon's writing as pretzelized
> logic and I kinda like that image) can come in handy when traveling in a
> minstrel show. 

Very pretzelized and twisted. 

> 
> The fragment from Thomas is bogus. I think this section is very playful.
> And I think it's an ideal episode for academics and Pyn-heads. I mean,
> how do I know the fragment is bogus? Well, look at it. Easy enough. 
> right?  Look it up. No, no, no, don't look it up. Well, you could look
> it up. I think that road to Providence goes to Brown University and I
> think one of the layers (circles)  here is an academic one. 

Yes, 'looking it up' is a possible approach, although for me the
sentiment expressed in the fragment is already, and immediately, all too
reminiscent of the Catholic cautionary literature of my youth for me to
be in any doubt of its provenance. 

Don't want to sound like I'm discounting the value of research. 

> 
> "Who would of thought so many would be here?"
> 
> This is a double allusion. Dante/Eliot. Inferno/Wasteland. 
> 
> We've seen this before. Ah, but we can't help it. It's coney island
> summer time cotton candy carnival away from the blood in my eyes
> scribbling maniacally at the the NY public library. 
> 
> This is Pynchon all the way. Red herrings and the like, playing on the
> bookishness of the reader and blah, blah. Fragments, bogus, silly,
> crazy, funny, .... pretzelized .... 
> 
Yes, pretzelized.. Fortunately by now Pynchon has the bookishness well
under control (unlike in the stories) 

> I asked about the delegates (one of whom is debating the "Heresy
> Question" with an ad man) because I think that these allusion to outside
> texts are mostly playful distractions and I think that we can parse
> (within reason, ha, ha!) if we play with Pynchon's text and the language
> he uses. There is no indication that the delegate debating is a specific
> person (I'm sure it's not Enzian), but the fact that he is in a
> rip-roaring argument over "what else but the Heresy Question" provides a
> clue. 

Yes, a certain amount of cause and effect thinking comes naturally here
and I would never suggest trying to suppress any parsing that comes
easily. Balance is all. 

> 
> What is the Heresy Question? 

I think the phrase as first presented in the section does not refere to 
a specific heresy but of  how to handle heresy in general Process, not content,
is what I think is normally meant by "the heresy question.":
Later the specific heterodox view that "they" may not die (without our actively
killing them) is taken up by Father Rapier.

It's evidently a scary proposition. 

Pynchon seems to be pushing the envelop a bit in the meaning of Devil's Advocate.
(as he also is in referring to Teilhard's work as preaching against return) 
As far as I know Devil's Advocate's don't get involved in doctrinal issues as
Rapier seems to be doing.


> 
> Has this something to do with Return? 

Yes, the specific heterodox view that "they" may not die of natural causes is
meant to suggest consequences for the prospect of Pynchonean Return. 
> 

> Another question: what about "Return" in this novel. Robert's reading of
> Enzian's idea about "return" makes sense to me, but his Return by Rocket
> is a distortion, corruption, christianized, Europeanized...  return, not
> what ancestors believed.

Sounds right to me. 

> 
> PS the Rhenish Missionary Society doesn't get a bad rap in GR. Their
> Missionary Colonialism in West Africa does.

No opinion on this one. :-)

P.