Vineland underrated

[Carvill John]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:52:32 jbor <jbor@[omitted]> wrote:

>>>Actually, he wrote that "Pynchon's overt left-wing views in Vineland may
>>>have helped earn him the negative reviews", which isn't correct anyway.

>on 26/9/03 9:56 AM, Carvill John at johncarvill@[omitted] wrote:

>>Can you please explain to me how a statement which hinges on the proviso
>>"may have" can be categorically dismissed with "isn't correct"? Unless you
>>personally penned all of the reviews in question, how can you be sure that
>>the political views expressed in the book didn't affect the opinions of 
>>the
>>reviewers?

>Sure. The statement isn't correct on two counts. To begin with, the
>assumption that "overt left-wing views", hopelessly ill-defined as that
>category is, are Pynchon's, is inaccurate. And whether or not there are
>"overt left-wing views" in the novel which are even equivocally endorsed, 
>or
>which are there at all, is doubtful.

Ok let me try and salvage some hope for my statement's defnition. Overt as 
in open, not hidden, up front. Left-wing as in anti-right-wing, 
anti-fascist, pro-freedom, anti-control. If you're going to bandy about 
terms such as "hopelessly ill-defined", it would perhaps behove you to 
ensure they have some degree of accuracy. Otherwise it just looks rude.


>And, the speculation about the substance and motivation of the negative
>reviews is also incorrect.

My thoughts on the motivation behind the negative reviews are indeed 
speculation (hence "may have"), but the substance of the reviews is not in 
doubt. I read them.


On  Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:16:11 "Otto" <ottosell@[omitted]> wrote:

>"In this century we have come to think of Sloth as primarily political, a
>failure of public will allowing the introduction of evil policies and the
>rise of evil regimes, the worldwide fascist ascendancy of the 1920's and
>30's being perhaps Sloth's finest hour, though the Vietnam era and the
>Reagan-Bush years are not far behind. .."

This quotation from Pynchon's Sloth essay gives us a fairly unequivical 
representation of his view of the Reagan years, does it not? Can you find 
any room for manoeuvre there? Nixon got caught and run out of office over 
the Watergate affair, otherwise who knows how bad it would have got? Answer: 
anyone who lived through the Reagan years.


On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:52:32 jbor <jbor@[omitted]> wrote:

>>The satire may be aimed at the left, but the
>>political viewpoint of the book is directed at the right.

>Say what? How does that work? The bulk of the satire and criticism in the
>novel is directed towards the 60s U.S. counter-culture, i.e. the
>college-aged "left", both as they were then and what they became.

Well yes, anger and regret over "what they became" must inevitably lead to a 
reassessment of "as they were", because what they were allowed them to 
become what they beacme. If you sell out, you were clearly capable of 
selling out. But the real point is that a left-wing resistance is required 
when faced with the fascist controllers, and if that resistance weakens then 
the fascists win, which is excatly what happened. The easy target for a lazy 
author would be the right, after all characters such as Nixon and Reagan 
were pretty-much self-satirising anyway; Pynchon's achievement, in political 
terms, is to direct his satire at the people who should have been focussed 
on fighting the fascists.

Best to you too

John

_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC.  Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963