Discussing TRP's Watts Article

[Otto]

>
> Otto,
>
> Of course you are free to do or not do whatever you want, but nobody
> has called the article "shitty" and what MalignD and I HAVE been doing
> is discussing the merits of the article.

"lousy" or "shitty" -- do you think there's a big difference?

This is what MalignD has written, resp. was answering to. Dunno who said
this:

> "Thanks for responding and, I think, we agree that there's a lot in this
> piece that's bullshit, but I disagree with your opening premise, i.e.:

If someone opens a discussion like that for me the discussion is over
immediately.

<<Given the title of the piece, it's not surprising or unseemly that Pynchon
should construct characters and voices to portray "the mind of Watts.">>

Absolutely bullshit. If he had invented those voices he would have said:
"Let's imagine for a moment . . ." or something alike. The text surely isn't
only his fantasy. He's been there.

Now Malign D:

> Or perhaps I agree.  Perhaps it's not surprising or unseemly.
> What it is is lousy journalism.

No argument given for this opinion, thus worthless.

> The only value or interest this piece has is that it was written
> by Pynchon.

The fact that Pynchon wrote it of course is the reason why it is read here,
but it is only because of a bad reception that it's the "only" value of the
text. If someone says so I know that this person hasn't got what it's about.

> On it's own merits, it's really very bad--jejune
> and obvious, to say nothing of dishonest, which is the word
> for those invented quotes, unless one prefers "embarrassing."
>

Not only lousy, but "really very bad"-- no arguments or textual support
given for this opinion, thus worthless.

> Of course, according to Nightingale and, I guess, Otto, and
> others, it's all fiction, so it's surely jake with them that there's
> nothing in the piece that indicates Pynchon ever set foot in Watts.
>

Apart from the fact that I haven't said a word up to now about the question
if he's been there or not this false impression explains a lot to me about
MalignD's abilities and ideas to interpret textual artefacts which is, in my
opinion, generally late 18th or early 19th century. He hasn't understood
what logocentrism is.

Because he has not understood the Watts-text he is unable to say something
about it except putting it down according to the standard ("shitty, lousy")
we've read so often here, rhetorically excellent, but empty. I really don't
know why he's taking so much effort trying to understood such a shitty
author as Pynchon: I mean, a guy who's written only shitty essays, delivers
lousy journalism, wrote some mediocre stories and some weak novels -- why
does he waste so much time?

> MalignD thinks it is poor journalism,
> and he has listed the reasons he thinks so.

Yes, "jejune, obvious, dishonest, embarrassing" -- to me his critique is
lousy and itself all of this he says about the article (except dishonest).

> I don't think it should be
> called "journalism," because it is really an editorial, a genre meant for
> expression of personal opinions.  BUT for us to weigh the value of this
> opinion we have to decide whether Pynchon deserves to be believed:
> What is his REAL LIFE experience with the people of Watts?
> He doesn't specifically tell us, although he does refer to some
> conversations with people there.
> It would have been nice if he'd described the specifics of his journey
> there.
>

Like an "embedded journalist"? In fact he's saying a lot about black reality
and white/middle-class illusions in the piece. His "real life experience" is
that he went there to talk to people.

> That said, I really have a hard time beliving the following
"conversations" he describes:
>
> >>Others remember it in terms of music: through much of the rioting seemed
> >>to run, they say, a remarkable empathy, or whatever it is that jazz
> >>musicians feel on certain nights:  everybody knowing what to do and when
> >>to do it without needing a word or a signal:  "You could go up to
> >>anybody, the cats, could be in the middle of burning down a store or
> >>something, but they'd tell you, explain very calm, just what they were
> >>doing,
> >>what they were going to do next.  And that's what they'd do; man, nobody
> >>had to give orders."
>
> Like I said in my earlier post:
>
> >I have my sincere doubts about anyone telling Pynchon such things, mainly
> >because it sounds like something he'd write a story about.  It's
> >something he'd LIKE to have happen.

I don't share your doubts. When you say "sounds like something he'd write a
story about" to which of his mediocre and lousy (or was it shitty) stories
do you refer to.

> Does anybody really believe that
> >there was some sort of unspoken, but commonly felt, coordination of
> >action during the riots?

Well, I'm sure that it happened that way. There was no military planning for
the riots.

> But if one were to believe this description it would lend a
> certain spirituality or inherent nobility to the rioters.

Right, absolutely right. The cause of those people in Watts 1965 fighting
the cops was noble.

> This is Pynchon's
> noble "Street" action which he describes so often (in GR & Vineland) as a
> >wonderful/horrible dance where "pure action" supercedes thought.
>

Which makes him a part of those wonderful critical sixties people who've
changed the world, yes.

> I think it's too coincidental that Pynchon's Jazz obsession and his
> "Street Action" obsession would converge so perfectly in conversations
> he had in Watts.  It just doesn't ring true to my ears or mind.
>
> Ghetta
>

Don't you live in New Orleans? What do I have to or can tell you about good
music?

Which instrument(s) do you play? If none at all, do the congas or bongos
and join a jam session and you'll know what he means. As a drummer I
can tell that the following is precisely what Jazz and Blues are about:

"(...) a remarkable empathy, or whatever it is that jazz musicians feel on
certain nights; everybody knowing what to do and when to do it without
needing a word or a signal."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-watts.html

To me it makes absolutely sense that those riot-people had that "remarkable
empathy" too.

Otto