VLVL "closed ideological minds" (232)

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: VLVL "closed ideological minds" (232)

> otto
> > Rex is not talking about Asian dictators but about America explicitly in
> > that quote.
>
> I disagree. As I've said, I don't think that Rex is talking about America,
> the Bushes or WASPs specifically in the passage on p. 232.

He's explicitly talking about America in those 5 1/2 lines. You can deny
that again and again but it doesn't change the text of the novel.

> It's a general
> historical and ideological analysis,

... of the Capitalist Puritan American Society, resp. its rulers. You won't
deny that American politicians have a tendency to dynasties, that in the USA
money-aristocracy indeed has replaced the original European
blood-aristocracy as Rex claims.

> part of a conversation Rex once had
> with Weed when he was trying to persuade the latter to bail out. It
> certainly doesn't support the contention that Pynchon has chosen to avoid
> publicity and journalists for over 40 years because he is afraid of
> McCarthyism and anti-communist witchhunts, which is why you cited it
> initially.

You cannot simply rule out the possibility that it might be one of his
reasons at the beginning of his career, when McCarthyism was still in full
bloom. But I offered this only additionally, remember what my main point was
why I believe he's a little shy.

> I also think there's quite a bit more nuance in Pynchon's
> depictions of and references to American Puritanism in _GR_ than you're
> implying in your comparison of Rex's sentiments (5 1/2 lines) to that
> novel (758 pages).
>

Which nuances do you refer to?

I've compared Rex's rant to the special conversation between Wimpe and
Tchitcherine on p. 701.17-36, not to the whole of GR.

> And why do you leave out the passage on 207-8 where Pynchon introduces Rex
> and equates his quest to help instigate a true revolution in South East
> Asia
> to "finding" Jesus? Are you avoiding specific pieces of the text? To me it
> seems you ignore that passage and the ironic juxtaposition of it to the
> later one because you disagree with the inherent critique. You keep
> repeating yourself, etc.
>
> best
>

No, not at all. The ironic juxtaposition is of course there.
But it's another topic.

Rex talking about Christians "talking crusade" is indeed
strange given the messianic character of his own closed
ideological mind. But maybe he needed to become obsessed
himself to be able to understand the obsession the critical sixties
youth has been up against.

I'd be glad to discuss this under postmodern premises,
taking GR p. 701 into account too. I do not disagree to
the inherent critique of the critique-less embrace of socialist
ideas among the critical youth of the sixties; I share it.

Just because they were up against the "True Faith" hasn't automatically
meant that they'd been good, just as Rex says. I take that critique very
serious because this uncritical takeover of ideas without analysis (DL to
Frenesi) made it so easy for people like Brock to crush the "revolution" --
and I mean this "revolution" ironically. If Rex (and not only the author who
writes the passage) truly would have understood his own "message" he
surely would have drawn other conclusions, not seeking absolution by
becoming a killer himself.

But the text of p. 207-8 simply isn't on p. 232.
Your critique that  I'm avoiding specific text I disagree to is baseless.

Otto