MMV: Context

Otto ottosell at yahoo.de
Fri Aug 20 11:48:20 CDT 2004


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta at hotmail.com>
To: <ottosell at yahoo.de>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: MMV: Context
>
> >From: "Otto" <ottosell at yahoo.de>
> >
> >Here's the part that you should've quoted:
> >
> >"He (i.e. White) misses the early signs of Siegel's amorality
>
> Could someone who agrees with this above point out to us
> what those "early signs of Siegel's amorality" are.
>

King does a good job in this throughout his essay.

> >as well as Pynchon's implicit criticism of Siegel's behavior.
>
> As well as "Pynchon's implicit criticism of Siegel's behavior."
>

ditto:

"By focusing on the forces that shape Siegel's behavior (heredity and
environment; religious delusions; culture), Keesey, Slade, and Seed fail to
acknowledge--much less explore--the moral questions that surround Siegel's
actions. Consequently, they are themselves guilty of shrugging off--or, at
the very least, downplaying the seriousness of--the murders. And, by doing
so, they reinforce White's accusation that "Mortality and Mercy" (and, by
extension, all postmodern fiction) is morally suspect."

To claim that Pynchon endorses Siegel's decision at the end of the story out
of some kind of authorial "juvenile delinquency" is nonsense.

> >Most important, White fails to recognize that we misread Siegel because
we
> >tend to read, especially in the absence of death (or some equally
dramatic
> >situation), indifferently. And indifference, Pynchon shows us, is deadly,
> >both in extreme cases (Loon's attack) as well as in less dramatic ones
> >(evaluating Siegel). In White's haste to distance himself from Siegel's
> >position, he overlooks the fact that it is Pynchon who nudges the reader
> >toward the moral high ground.[sup13]"
>
> I think this quote above is a silly and desperate attempt to rescue this
> story from itself.  Of course we read indifferently, unless something in
the
> fiction moves us to do otherwise.  MMV doesn't.  So according to this
> critic, we've fallen into Pynchon's devious trap by not being moved by his
> subtle fiction.  Pardon me, but what crap.
>
> Ghetta
>

We've only fallen into Pynchon's devious trap if we fell into that trap.

It is "subtle fiction" by a young author testing his abilities. If you're
not recognizing this you're not judging the story correctly, as it deserves
to be judged. Nobody has claimed that it is perfect or flawless.

Otto




More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list