Vineland underrated (the end)

[Carvill John]

On 26 Sep 2003 18:05:54 "Ghetta Life" wrote:

>>From: "Carvill John" <johncarvill@[omitted]> As to the 1984 introduction, 
>>"fuzzy-brained writing"? I'm afraid your response to Otto's claim that 
>>Pynchon's overt political statements get dismissed as "shitty writing" 
>>only serves to illustrate his point.

>>But if you read the 1984 intro and the sloth essay and could still calim 
>>some level of ambiguity vis a vis Pynchon's views >>on the Reagan years 
>>(clue: fascism) then your level of delusion is ineluctable.

>The quality of his writing (shitty, fuzzy, or otherwise) in his essays has 
>nothing to do with >any "ambiguity vis a vis Pynchon's views on the Reagan 
>years (clue: fascism)"  But maybe your confusion on this point has 
> >something to do with your >opinion about Otto's point being proved a 
>while back.


The quality of the writing 'has nothing to do with any "ambiguity vis a vis 
Pynchon's views on the Reagan years (clue: fascism)"  That's right, it ought 
not, but does it? Or is it a coincidence? The 1984 intro was published in 
one of the broadsheets in the UK, and not only was the writing of a very 
high standard, but many, many parts of it chimed uncannily with exactly what 
an old Orwell fanatic friend used to say about him. That man didn't have 
Pynchon's eloquence, but it gave it an extra ring of truth for me and my 
admiration of teh piece is unshakable. Slippery, eh? Your 'some thought it 
was about the Homeland security Act' has a whif about it, might I poist that 
you were not among their number? Well, I would never have picked out the 
admittedly obvious 'Homeland Security Act' allusion: think the homeland in 
'when the homeland is attacked' was a coincidence or a casually chosen word? 
Isn't it odd that you mention that?

I mean I think this really seals it for me. It's been a long strange etc. 
but I now feel satisfied that my original question is resolved. Y'see for 
you I believe the *perceived* quality of his writing has a hell of a lot to 
do with his political views. If he'd written a book of equal literary merit 
satirizing Stalin, Castro or even Gorbachev, might we have seen your opinion 
of the 'quality' of his writing rise even a little?

I said right at the start that Vineland was no GR, but what I didn't realise 
was that the bigger disparity in how well they are regarded is so largely 
accounted for by a bunch of, to use the vernacular, proper *wack * 
misconceptions, seemingly wilful ones brought on as a result of a sort of 
cognitive dissonance in the right-wing bias of the reader confronting an 
author of obvious genius but who seems to be a god damn leftie of some sort. 
Shut him up! But don't denounce him, we won the first round of that Beatles 
thing but in the long run it's too embarrasing, lets embrace, co-opt and 
eventually sanitize him. Culture Jam!

Ok. It's ironic, dont-cha think? that my original, innocent question, about 
why Vineland is underrated, sparked off such a bewildering deluge of 
revisionist right-wing cracker-barrel lit-crit (and who knows how long ago 
the Subject of the thread should have been changed to, er, 'Vineland 
Misread' say), seemingly as irrelevant as it was shocking,  yet in reality 
couldn't be more closely related to the subject at hand.

It's been real.

_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos without swamping your Inbox.  Get Hotmail Extra Storage 
today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es