Pynchon's "knewspeak"

[Dave Monroe]

Keeping in mind Yahoo! is set up such that it's easier
to read these things in reverse chronological order,
and that I've lately gotten into the habit of
immediately deleting posts without reading them ...

--- prozak at anus.com wrote:
> 
> > > And, while my contention here is, when we don't
> > > argue politics, we argue Blicero (which is
> > > nontheless generally to argue politics here by
> > > other means ...)
> > 
> > I suspect that this parenthesis is intended as
> > provocation. Perhaps you might be imposed upon to
> > elaborate on what you mean by it.

Well, when we don't argue the text ostensibly at hand,
we argue politics, and when we don't argue the
politics ostensibly at hand, we often seem to manage
somwhow to get back 'round to Blicero again, but it's
all pretty much the same argument, so far as I can
tell, drawn along the sam lines, over the same topoi,
whatever.  I imagine that's why the character is such
a fascination to y'all (me, I've always been more
interested in the seemingly--seemingly--more
peripheral elements in those Pynchonian texts (c)),
'cos it, he, whatever, figures so much of so much
interest, investment, antagonism, whatever, to y'all,
is all.  An allusion to von Clausewitz on war 'n'
diplomacy, the latter as acontinuation of the former
by other means (and vice versa) there, of course, but
y'all already knew that.  For the record, I tend to
find myself most amenable to whatever Terrance has had
to say on the subject, but ... 
 
> My guess is that he's pointing out the metaphorical
> nature of political discussion in art. Pynchon uses
> metaphor to stand for politics;

Hes esp. seems to use, if not necessarily sexuality,
per se, sexual power relations, as such.  I think
Terrance and I are on agreement as well on that ...

> we use politics to stand for art; why not simply
> obliterate the artificial categories and admit that
> discussing ideas knows no bounds?

Not sure if I'm following you there, but I THINK this
is congruous with my "by other means," so ...

> (Rhetorical, general question with no specific
> recipient)

No offense intended or taken ...
 
> What annoys most people is rigidly, dogmatic,
> partisan politics. 

Well, I don't know if we have that here, per se.  More
rigid, dogmatic partisanship, period.  Associating
anyone here with specific, established, traditional
political menus is difficult.  

> On any truly intelligent list, any perspective
> would be welcome (that's not true here...).

Well, I wouldn't say anyone here isn't "intelligent,"
or that the LIST, per se, doesn't welcome various
perspectives, but, on that latter note, certainly,
there are individuals who are less hospitable to some
perspectives than others.  Me, I'm not always thrilled
to see some of them show up at my door, but i do try
to be a gracious host, at any rate ...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/