AtD and 9/11

[jd]

So, the whole blurb is pretty humorous / tongue in cheek and this one
example isn't?

And frankly Clemens / Twain is pretty damn good company if you ask me.
 He's not a writer who cares overly what the hell people think of his
writing...  I mean come on.  I think he's smart enough to realize that
the best way to make people read the new work in the light of current
affairs is to direct them not to do so.  And Keith, how can removing a
major facet of his work make it more complex and deep?  '

I have an instinct that tells me he doesn't agree with Bush, but he
hasn't said anything on the subject (I opt not to include the Playboy
interview as it's extraneous to his work if it is in fact real) and
I'm not going to claim I 100% know what he thinks of the current
administration simply because he hasn't commented on it - maybe he
will in this new novel.  To think that Pynchon is not left - or at
least, not centrist a la libertarian (I'd wager he leans more in that
direction than left or right to be honest) is to deny the words laid
out on the page...  it's no agenda, it's what he writes.  I would love
to have some examples to show Pynchon's penchant for conservatism
because they remain elusive to me.  Pynchon makes numerous
commentaries on government in general and to say that it isn't a part
of his work - well, I'll say I think you are ignoring a pretty
important facet of his writing.

Regardless of the argument at hand - left, right, what the hell ever -
to say that Pynchon's works are apolitical...  it has nothing to do
with left wing politics.

Though, as inflammatory as this may sound, I will say that a man who
seems to be inclined towards pot, LSD, sex, Thelonious Monk, &etc
would certainly make an odd right winger.

On 8/16/06, Keith McMullen <keithsz at mac.com> wrote:
> Reading the present day into Pynchon's fiction has been the least
> interesting avenue explored here, and yet it is the most prevalent.
> Hell, Dana Medora's menstrual reading is a stretch from my
> perspective, but at least it is fascinating and creative. The "modern
> day" readings are banal and boring. Not one thing comes from them
> that adds anything to an understanding of Pynchon, nor to a deeper
> understanding of current affairs. I'm sick of seeing Pynchon used to
> prove that he agrees with a reader's politics. So what. Not one thing
> has been posted on this list that shows how Pynchon deepens our
> understanding of the current political situation. It's all been
> little more than "Bush is an asshole, and look, Pynchon thinks he's
> an asshole, too." So fucking what. If I were Pynchon, I'd try to get
> people off that soapbox, too. It trivializes the hell out of the
> complexity and depth of his fiction, which is about so much more than
> current affairs. But, people are so addicted to using Pynchon to
> support their left wing politics that they miss the incredible scope
> of what he is doing. And when he says, "Hey reader. My work is not
> intended to be about current affairs," you are seen as a fucking
> idiot if you don't get that he's just kidding, just pulling a Samuel
> Clemens on us. Pynchon belongs in better company than Samuel Clemens.
>
> On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:04 PM, David Gentle wrote:
>
> > Do some people on this list actually think that this is not
> > intended ironically??!!!
> > Steve Maas
> >
> >
> > Pynchon wrote:
> >> No reference to the present day is intended or should be inferred.
> I'm not saying either way.
> Ages ago (years) I made the point that we all have our own personal
> idea of what P. is like, our own personal Pynchon in our heads.
> I think people are reading an awful lot of what they want to believe
> about P. into his words. The analysis of the intro to Slow Learner
> from a couple of years ago that basically refused to take anything he
> actually said at face value and assumed that there was some infinate
> depth to what seemed, to me at least, to be fairly straightforward
> statements bothered me. Maybe the guy really does believe that he's
> not that great. Maybe he believes that he's not as good as everyone
> else says he is. Maybe that's why he stays out of the limelight.
> But I don't know. And neither does anyone else here.
> That's all I'm saying really.
>
> DG
>
>