ATDDTA (3): Control issues, Chums, They

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 20:39 -0800, David Casseres wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Monte Davis <monte.davis at verizon.net> wrote:
>         
>         Seems to me it puts him right on the bobwire fence, in that
>         most of those in
>         his books whom you could label political actors are either
>         defeated "within
>         the system" (e.g. Hub Gates, or the Germans in GR recalling
>         the good fight 
>         in Weimar days)... or have crossed some sort of line to some
>         sort of outlaw
>         status. I mean, it's great to rediscover Colorado anarchism.
>         But the fact is
>         that (comparatively) namby-pamby, incremental, non-dynamite
>         reformism -- 
>         unions and farmer-labor movements, progressivism,
>         trust-busting, even the
>         Teddy Roosevelt strain of <gasp> Republicans -- enlisted a
>         hell of a lot
>         more people, and left a hell of a lot more legacy of change,
>         than all the 
>         American anarchists put together ever did.
> 
> I have the impression that it was bomb-throwing radicals like the
> Anarchists, or Narodniks, or early Bolsheviks, who eventually drove
> those more constructive elements to, well, construct something. I kind
> of think P. might agree. 


Regardless of the actual historic meaning and significance of anarchism,
my impression of Pynchon's version of it is that of a working man's
religion, a religion whose chief sacrament is blowing stuff and enemies
of the people up.  The function of AtD's "Anarchism" seems to be
primarily spiritual, to provide for the spiritual needs of the suffering
populace.  I don't think "Anarchism" in AtD comes across as any kind of
effective political action or certainly not as a political movement. But
one thing is clear, Pynchon never seriously attempts to disparage this
"Anarchism" or call it a failure, any more than he called 60s student
radicalism a failure in VL.



> 
> 
> 
>