AtD - Anarchy vs Terror Spoiler pg 78

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John BAILEY" On the other hand, by establishing spokes between 
AtD and the other novels, doesn't that perform a kind of rationalization 
of its own? If AtD *does* create a kind of coherent cosmology which 
unites the novels and allows them all to be situated in a consistent 
history and space (even if they are about internal inconsistencies 
and alterations of that history and space), is there some kind of 
paradox going on here? Ie, if we can say with any certainty "there 
used to be magic and stuff, the people like Mason and Dixon 
made it no more", isn't that itself a kind of line-drawing, dichotomy 
establishing, whatever? Just pondering, and probably not 
expressing a thought very well. 




I guess this might be crazy, but bear with me. Magic is 
inherently paradoxical, paradox is inherently magical.




From: "John BAILEY" Also, I'm interested in the new novel's repeated 
evocation of namelessness - things which haven't been named, 
things which have lost their names, things which must not be 
named. Plenty of instances in the first few hundred pages, and 
power is usually ascribed to the nameless. Compare and 
contrast Cherrycoke's discussion of the 'crime of anonymity' 
early in M&D.



There's some basic rules for magic, and one is "be silent". Knowing
the name of a power, but not uttering that name gives the name 
additional power. Note the onset of "Ritual Reluctance" in the "Courier's Tragedy."
Not also, as well Merle Rideout's reaction to Webb Traverse during his first entrance
in AtD, on page 78


" . . . ."All right, but do everybody a favor, say 'Anti-Stone". It has another name, 
but we'd just get into trouble sayin it out loud. . . ."


I really don't think a postmodern reading of Pynchon's intro to
"Stone Junction" is possible. Take it or leave it, that's what
the man's really thinking.