Repost: The Big One

[Richard Ryan]

I myself am like a hockey puck, simultaneously flat AND round.

By the way, has there been a thread I've overlooked investigating the intriguing fact that OBA and his missus chose to give their son their two last names?  I was thinking about this (I'm a person with two first names, so I'm the same, only different) and it occurred to me that it must has started with a discussion or perhaps even an argument between the two of them about whether or not his last name would be hyphenated.  And then perhaps they got so exhausted and impatient with each other that they didn't have the energy to come with a first name so all that got put on the birth certificate was Jackson-Pynchon. Eventually the hyphen dropped out.  Or maybe they had wanted to keep it and re-iterate their two names, in which case the young man would have been Jackson Pynchon Jackson-Pynchon.  Or Jackson Pynchon Pynchon-Jackson depending on their mood.    



--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Repost: The Big One
> To: markekohut at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>, "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 2:49 PM
> Boy, I missed out on some fun stuff while I was out in the
> world yesterday!
> You see, I fail to live one of those boring, stultified
> lives.  I am a
> caretaker on a very remote ranch near Big Sur and everyday
> is new, filled
> with new challenges both emotional (I live alone, far from
> people) and
> cognitive (I read extensively and grapple with ideas from
> plumbing to Plato)
> so flattish life would not serve me well.  Perhaps that is
> why I find round
> characters everywhere.  To paraphrase Joyce again: we meet
> ourselves in the
> world around us.   That is also a point raised in Jung: 
> the individual is
> lost in systems (please watch "Network" again -
> all this is argued
> beautifully in that masterpiece), but the system exists
> ONLY by fact of
> individual participation.  Systems do not have a dominant
> monad, a central
> unifying consciousness.  They cannot feel, invent, think
> independently of
> the individuals within them.  I see this happening in our
> boy's work.  The
> individuals move through systems, alchemically shifting
> nuances as needed to
> negotiate the byways through the complex world of
> non-nations and retain
> their identities.  I failed to get lost between the
> brothers Traverse
> primarily because of the elements associated with each,
> though each in fact
> requires the association of all the elements.  So, yes, the
> idea dominates,
> but the individual is formed by his temperament.  I agree
> with Bekah that
> there is no black and white flat v. round nature, but I
> would argue a more
> Taoist read, that apparent anarchy is simply the impure
> nature of worldly
> things.  And I would argue it is the impurity that makes
> each character and
> system more or less amenable to us as readers.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Mark Kohut
> <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Paul.
> >
> > I do think I know, worked with some people every day
> for years, and they
> > were fragments of people, just as are some in GR...
> >
> > And in Pynchon's world of doubled down meanings,
> think of the upside of
> > 'everything connects"....a wholeness beyond
> fragmentation....
> >
> > mark
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Paul Mackin
> <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> > > Subject: Re: Repost: The Big One
> > > To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> > > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 1:22 PM
> > > Mark Kohut wrote:
> > > > A few obs.
> > > >
> > > > I have often thought that the non-rounded
> characters
> > > in much of Pynchon's work is because we real
> human
> > > beings aren't too "round" in our
> current
> > > degraded world,in Pynchon's worledview.
> > > >
> > > You may be on to something, Mark.
> > >
> > > I remember back about 40 years ago being told
> that we were
> > > ONE-dimensional men.
> > >
> > > In Pynchon's world, however, we are surely
> more like
> > > hyper-paranoid men.
> > >
> > > What kind of distinctive character trait would
> required for
> > > that?
> > >
> > > Guess I'm talking about GR--don't know
> what the
> > > hell happened after that.
> > >
> > > Perhaps characters in the True Land of Paranoia
> don't
> > > need much
> > > character--we can pretty much forget shapes.
> > >
> > > Getting buffeted around by all those
> interconnecting forces
> > > (everything
> > > connects) doesn't leave much room for
> individual
> > > discretion.
> > >
> > > I have long suspected that reading too much
> Pynchon can
> > > make people act
> > > kind of peculiarly.
> > >
> > > For example, some of us adopt the phrase
> "everything
> > > connects" as sort
> > > of a motto.
> > >
> > > That gives me pause.  A little tiny pause anyway.
> > >
> > > What if the satirical origins get lost?
> > >
> > > It might be wise to take a lesson from the case
> of the
> > > cover of this
> > > issue of The New Yorker.
> > >
> > > Some folks may not realize they aren't in
> Kansas
> > > anymore. (not too many
> > > I hope)
> > >
> > > But getting back to "everything
> connects," yes a
> > > lot of things ARE
> > > connected, and we should we conscious of this, 
> but there
> > > are still a
> > > lot of other things that are not.
> > >
> > > To believe that everything is connected can be
> the mark of
> > > a psychotic.
> > > (a real one)
> > >
> > > A well-meaning sane person who thinks too
> inclusively here
> > > runs the
> > > danger of not picking up on the connections that
> really
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > I duuno where this is going  . . . . except I did
> want to
> > > let Mark know
> > > I liked his idea.
> > >
> > > P.
> >
> >
> >
> >