A Question about IV

[rich]

i thought of that after I posted--I should have noted these were my
impressions after reading IV for the second time

rich

On 8/31/09, Rich Clavey <antizoyd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>