The State of the P-List (part 1)

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchonoid" <pynchonoid at yahoo.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: The State of the P-List (part 1)

> Right you are, Big O.  Of course, most of the "talk
> about Pynchon" that's taken place this week has been
> in spite of the PF discussion and not part of it. With
> the exception of jbor's initial post about the PF and
> Vineland epigraphs, and jbor's post reminding us of
> the "talk about Boswell" in M&D,  most of the little
> bit of "talk about Pynchon" that has been part of the
> PF discussion appears to have been more of an
> afterthought designed to quiet the clamor of P-listers
> who wonder why Pynchon-l has been hijacked.
>

"In spite of" - the PF-reading was never intended to stop any
Pynchon-related discussion.

Hijacked? Could it be that this time you're taking this too seriously?

> Speaking of Bush the Younger, Slayer of Evildoers, why
> do you think Pynchon has seen fit to include -- in
> _Vineland_ --  the story about Bush and the CIA being
> involved in the illicit drugs trade?

In order to make the hypocrisy obvious that's behind America's war on drugs.
But that's an open secret, like those US-Army LSD-experiments too. I've read
Howard Marks' "Mr. Nice" recently, which is very entertaining and very
anti-DEA and CIA.

> He could have
> easily done without it, and still would have
> communicated the full flavor of paranoia in Northern
> California marijuana country.

If I were to write a novel about the 70's and 80's "Ammerland" (must be much
of the same feeling as Northern Cal.) it wouldn't be complete without the
cop seriously falling in love to the heroin addicted lady, and being one of
the first Oldenburg Aids-victims some five years later.

> And Pynchon's critique
> of the Bush Administration in the Foreword to _1984_?

As far as I remember I've been the one on this list who first made explicit
that Pynchon is talking about past 9/11-USA in the Foreword. I've read it
more as a warning than an accusation. I did not convince everybody, but it's
been a lively discussion and I would never accuse those who disagree of
being Bush-supporters just because they don't see in the text what I see in
it, just because they don't share my interpretation! The silence about this
topic comes from the fact that we have discussed it and meanwhile other
things have caught our attention. If you think that it hasn't been discussed
properly why don't you start a discussion? 300+ lurkers are waiting for it
desperately. Or write an essay about it for Counterpunch.

Pynchon is always critical of the government, those "criminally insane," of
any government I suppose because the will to fascism and totalitarianism
seems to be an immanent factor of administrative organisations, a result of
the hierarchical structure.

> You Bush supporters are all strangely silent each time
> this comes up, embarrassed, I guess, to have to
> acknowledge that your bloodthirsty, war-profiteering
> champion is the object of your favorite author's
> scorn.
>

When you're saying such funny things you strongly remind me of
Kinbote, trying to impose his "story" on his favourite writer.

> --- Otto <ottosell at yahoo.de> wrote:
> > And did I tell the truth so far or not?
> >>   Otto: "Reading Pale Fire together doesn't mean
> >> that there will be no talk about Pynchon."
>

But what I meant was that there will be a lot to learn about structures,
references, allusions, literary tricks and devices. To me it seems as if
Pynchon (and Barth and the other postmodernists) owe more to
Nabokov than I had imagined before reading PF.

Otto