Pynchon mention re rock, paper, scissors game

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/19/04 8:54:36 AM, pynchonoid at yahoo.com writes:

<< Glad to see some momentum developing here for the
notion I proposed a while back, that Pynchon's
portrayal of PR3 has little to do with satirizing the
60s Movement that fought against the War and for Civil
Rights -->>

I agree (have agreed, continue to...) and again, point to
the almost total lack of the portrayal of the combined
civil rights/anti-war movement (that coalesced around MLK, Jr.)
in this novel, as another example of P. using the "presence
of absence" technique, as he did in GR, to a large extent, with
the Holocaust (I know you don't precisely accept that, but we
are working on the same side...) to draw even more attention
to the real battle, and more importantly, to the real enemy, as
opposed to their tele-envisioned versions.

While not exactly "Magical Realism" there are parallels. One of
the more significant being the need to destabilize the dominant
"contextual field," which has/had been culturally conditioned 
to deny the existence of an "underground of the State" (31)
with it's "technically different budget line" then the mafia WPP,
allowing deniablity, while being run by the same people- dual use 
fascists, so to speak. Likewise, it destablizes the culturally
conditioned reflex to dismiss the student/hippie rebellion as
just a "hand-job."

Most importantly, the novel becomes a conundrum for those
who would attempt to resolve and dismiss it by one or another simple
formula. For example, if it is a satire of "the Movement" is it a 
satire of "the underground of the state" as well? If not, then
who decides where the line is drawn between satire and straight
fiction? If it is a satire of both, then Hector's characterization:
"...this is a *real* revolution, not that little fantasy hand-job you 
people was into" (27) must also be satire. By destablizing the prevailing
contextual field, or cultural conditioning, Pynchon's technique forces 
us to question which was the "little fantasy hand-job" the Movement?
the "underground of the State [which is] nothin like that shit on the Tube"?
Both? Neither? 

That's why parody better characterizes this technique than satire. 
To be effective, satire requires a common objective frame of 
reference on which it is based, or else risks becoming self-referential 
or self-satirical, which, as a matter of fact, would make it parody- 
self-parody. Pynchon denies us the common frame of reference, 
or objectivity, required by satire, except in one respect- television,
our one truly common frame of reference. TV becomes the object of 
his satire. Hector is saved, and, Tube willing, Zoyd will never die.

respectfully  (Thanks for the pointer to MLK's speech, btw.)
 
<< ..instead, the wanna-be revolutionaries at PR3
fall victim to their own weaknesses and as a result of
the pressures brought to bear by the Nixonian
Reaction, through so-called "rogue" law enforcement
elements like Brock (his kind remain at work today
within the Department of Justice, of course, they
never did go away), plus deeper currents of cultural
conditioning  (the Tube, among others) that are
preparing them to be productive citizens in 1984 under
Reagan. >>