SLSL 'Low-lands' racism?

[jbor]

on 14/1/03 12:48 PM, tess marek at tessmarek at yahoo.com wrote:

> Yes, but Pynchon has re-issued the story and he notes
> that Modern Readers (by Modern readers I take him to
> mean those reading the story in 1984 or after its
> re-issue) will be put off.

Precisely. "Modern readers" who know about the insidious racist & sexist
values and attitudes which were widely held during the 50s, who know about
the social and historical repercussions of those attitudes, and who
recognise how they permeate this story. Which is why he is apologising for
being a "smart-assed jerk who didn't know any better" at the time he wrote
it. People who read it in 'New World Writing' in 1960 presumably didn't
"know any better" either, didn't notice the implicit put-downs, because they
held the same sorts of values.

>From the perspective of 1984 (or 2003) it's not so much the characterisation
of Bolingbroke which is the problem, because times have changed and the
racial stereotype just seems, well, quaint and dumb. But in writing his
critique of these stories in the 'Intro' Pynchon is projecting back to the
social and historical context in which they were produced, and also trying
to project back to the person he was then.

I also don't know how much real enthusiasm Pynchon had about the repackaging
and reissue of these early offerings. There were the pirate Aloes Books
versions floating about, there was probably pressure from his agent and
publisher, he hadn't had anything out for a good ten years ....

> Right. And the tale he tells? What about that sea
> story? Why does P give this tale to a dump's night
> watchman named Bolingbroke? What is P saying about
> Union labor and US policy in Latin America after WWI?

No idea. You tell us. But the idea of a "proto-Fascist" Italian insurgence
into Cuba (recently-constituted as "Communist" at the time of the story's
writing) is certainly a big part of it.

best