TOO reBEel or naught to reBEel ?

[Ray Easton]

Joseph Tracy wrote:
> Actually Ray, the substance of what I said was drawn from the text.  
> The 24 fps is all young and some of their disagreements and  those of 
> the earlier film collective from whom they got the equipment reveal  
> several naive and youthful ideas.  Even  Frenesi is at first in an 
> elated state of naive hopefulness about the" revolution". She is the 
> only 24fps 'er who has lefty roots to some degree, but  she grew up in 
> LA hollywood movieland. When she realizes her own danger and 
> vulnerability she takes refuge with the powers.
> Prairie is much more saturated in her own history and place, much 
> freer to make her own mistakes and taste the allure of mallworld, and 
> is part of an extended left leaning clan. Much of the book is devoted 
> to outlining this inquiry into the personal-historic roots of her 
> situation.  I think this clearly empowers her to resist Vond.
>
> DL starts out as the object of patriarchal abuse. She connects to the 
> eastern tradition of self defense to protect herself , sees the 
> patriarchal abuse of the larger society,  is tempted into  aggressive 
> vengeance, then connects to a fuller healing aspect of eastern 
> tradition with Kunoichi, and Takeshi and Karmic adjustment.. I think 
> the parallels of these stories are similar. Youthful rebellion and 
> self reliance must connect to a kind of larger family, deeper roots or 
> one gets trapped in  a cycle of  abuse/vengeance.
> So I don't see that part of my thoughts  as extra textual 
> supposition,  I find them strongly embedded in the text and am 
> listening for a text based refutation.

Let's see what you actually said that I was responding to.  Here is what
you wrote about 24fps:

> The 24fps collective is a good representation of the leadership of the 
> youth wing of the 60s counterculture radicals. The problem is not with 
> the rebellion against the excesses of the empire or the form of 
> turning the cameras on the repression. The problem is that they are 
> without experience, they fail to connect deeply and patiently to the 
> success and methods  of the Civil Rights movement, or to the well of 
> progressive sentiment in those  who rallied around FDR and the New 
> Deal and to all those who knew there was further to go.  They end up 
> out of their depth, seduced by anger, by the thrill of pushing their 
> parents buttons, seduced by their own success at getting attention and 
> unable to use the attention effectively.
What is there in the text to suggest that the failure to connect to "the
success and methods of the Civil Rights movement" is what "the problem"
is with 24fps?  Or with Frenesi?  I admit it's been a while since I've
read the text, but I can't recall seeing anything like that.  Please
correct me if I'm mistaken.

If only 24fps had been more connected to New Deal politics, all would
have been well?   Again, I can't seem to recall anything like that in
the text.   Please correct me if I am mistaken.

It appears to me that you have taken Pynchon's *description* of 24fps,
applied to it your own "progressive" politics, and produced this
critique.  My quarrel here is NOT with the critique, though I do not
share its politics, but with the notion that this is what Pynchon is
saying in Vineland.  But perhaps you did a not intend this as anything
other than a statement of your own political views.  In that case there
is nothing to discuss.

> I think Pynchon's  basic political and philosophical  sympathies are 
> pretty obvious and are stated with equally clear force in his several 
> esays: Watts, Luddite, 1984 intro, blurbs for other writers and book 
> reviews. 
It's splitting a hair that I'm sure no one but me is interested in
splitting, but...

I have no interest at all in what Pynchon's politics are.  I'm
interested only in the question of what "political views" might be
present in Vineland.  I assume that the former certainly influence the
latter,  but for me the former hold no interest whatsoever.

Ray