A Question about IV

[Rich Clavey]

Not to mention that the operative word here seems to be 'apparent'. How are we supposed to know whether IV is superficial without an in-depth reading?
rich

--- On Sun, 8/30/09, Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: A Question about IV
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 4:48 PM
> On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:35 PM, rich
> wrote:
> 
> > how do we reconcile the apparent superficial nature of
> IV overall with
> > any in-depth reading--e.g. lots of talk about Aunt
> Reet and there sure
> > seems alot of stuff being thrown down based on a
> character with only a
> > couple of lines. I mean its in the nature of our
> Pynchon discourse
> > mind you, so I'm not ragging on anybody. I'm still not
> convinced,
> > however, that this book requires deep investigation of
> the obscure for
> > some deeper insight.
> > 
> > rich
> 
> I'm seeing all sorts of surrounding connections of the CIA
> to the founding of the internet. The simple fact that one of
> the centers of these sorts of activities "just happens" to
> be the spot where TRP wrote Gravity's Rainbow fascinates me
> and makes me want to know more about the CIA/Internet
> connections. It also happens that these defense department
> activities involved rockets, big-time, a subject that
> appears to have interest Pynchon. Haven't seen much [yet]
> about background of GR in IV but there's scenes in IV that
> echo with scenes in GR..
> 
> On top of that, there's plenty of intertwining of Raymond
> Chandler's leitmotifs, symbolic strategies & signifiers
> in Inherent Vice. When you get down to it, there's 
> plenty about genre writing itself. While it looks like
> you're not in this particular demographic, plenty of folks
> found Inherent Vice affecting & accessible in ways that
> the author's  other books aren't. I know I do. I don't
> think that Inherent Vice is any "slighter" than The Crying
> of Lot 49. Then again, I don't think The Crying of Lot 49 is
> slight at all.
> 
> It's true that Pynchon is up to ALL of his old tricks here,
> including the ever popular "come up with some symbolic
> stick-figures, give them weird-ass, corny names, shove 'em
> couple of lines and then kick 'em off-stage" routine but
> now  there's the virtue of being having the story
> grounded in a central character.
> 
> It strikes me that Pynchon is juggling quite a few balls in
> this one. Of course, if it's not working for you maybe it's
> time to read something else for a while, give it a rest.
> I'll bet more readers gave up on Mason & Dixon than any
> other book by Pynchon. Nothing superficial about that one.
> 
>