New Statesman, May 5, 2003, pp. 47-48

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 20:09, jbor wrote:
> on 3/6/03 4:52 PM, Heikki Raudaskoski wrote:
> 
> > Among other things, Dugdale sez that the film "convey[s] a
> > sense that Pynchon is the preserve of a backward-looking geeky
> > cult, wholly absent from the cultural present.
> > In fact, Pynchon is everywhere in today's pop culture: in
> > The Simpsons ("You're reading Gravity's Rainbow?" Lisa asks
> > in awe of a student) and a slew of movies; shaping new-wave
> > sci-fi in Gibson's work; lending the X-Files its distinctively
> > Pynchonesque mix of state conspiracy, black humour and the
> > paranormal; name-checked by musicians as diverse as Laurie
> > Anderson, Warren Zevon, Yo La Tengo and, erm, Pat Benatar.
> > Radiohead lyrics echo him and the band's merchandising
> > website (w.a.s.t.e.) is a reference to Lot 49." Etc.
> 
> I'm wondering whether Dugdale's comment is actually a criticism of the film,
> aimed (somehwat uncharitably) at some or all of the Pynchonistas interviewed
> by the Dubini, rather than meaning to suggest that Pynchon really is
> irrelevant to "the cultural present"?


This seems right enough. However, going deeper, what IS "the cultural
present?" Isn't there a wide diversity of cultural presents? Who would
have the temerity to suggest a universalizing force fit dominant one?
Don't our backward-looking geeky ones constitute a cultural present
every bit as legitimate and defensible as our hip-swingers do? Call the
former the cultural-present-other, or call them the historic past. But
whatever you do call them to the Big Table shared by all.

P.

P.