on The Family---for possible discussion re Vineland/TRP

[kelber at mindspring.com]

I was talking about moral generalities.  The loaded phrase "family values" manipulated so successfully by the Republicans, for example.  Calling someone a "family man" implies that he's automatically more morally upstanding than a man who doesn't have a wife and kids.  Such as the recent rash of family men who slaughtered their wife and kids before committing suicide.  I think that's what the original McCauley quote was getting at.

I've never understood Tolstoy's happy families quote.  My mother loved that quote, but as a sullen, disaffected teen it seemed counter-intuitive to me:  if there were any happy families in existence, surely they must be the oddest, quirkiest people on the planet.

Laura

(as a sullen, disaffected oldster it still seems counterintuitive, come to think of it)

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 22, 2009 2:57 PM
>To: kelber at mindspring.com
>Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: on The Family---for possible discussion re Vineland/TRP
>
>Individual families cannot provide generalities about Family or
>families in general, just as individual people cannot provide general
>rules for understanding human beings in general.  That goes without
>say.  But that does not imply that there are no such thing as
>generalities about people or families that are meaningful.
>
>David Morris
>
>On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Since every family really creates its own oddball culture, saying that family, in general, is admirable or restrictive or anything makes as much sense as saying that culture, in general, is admirable, restrictive, etc.