rubrics (I like that word), wrecking crews and hugfests

[Carvill, John]

> If we get 19 more posts the thread count on this will reach 100

Let's make it happen!

> My understanding is that malignd is not accepting of anyone taking tarot et al seriously...

[I typed a comment about malignd here, but thought better of it. I don't care what line of argument he takes - he has the right to take any he likes - it's his unpleasant manner I can't stand.]

<< John holds out the possibility that pynchon did in fact at least at some
points practice Tarot and I Ching and so forth with some real
interest, and allows
as how Mr Pynchon's interest in such matters - if genuine - gives him
a certain amount of pause w/r/t to the dismissibility of such matters. >>

Pretty much. I personally don't believe in any supernatural phenomena, be they religions or tarot or new age mindbarf or whatever. I was just saying that, even if we quite reasonably assume that a man of pynchon's intellect doesn't believe in (or take seriously) that sort of thing either, we still have to wonder - don't we? - what we should make of the fact that there's a lot of that stuff in his books, and not just in a trivialising format.

I suppose I just wonder whether Pynchon's inclusion of 'occult' matters, can or should be taken as fuel for the possible inference that he may not regard these matters entirely dismissevly. Couple that with the fact that a lot of such matters - eg. Tarot, astrology, etc. - were very popular in the 1960s, in California, i.e. where/when IV is set, and where/when GR was written, well, I dunno, maybe that should just give us pause, yes. I don't have any big opinionated axe to grind. Many of my posts on this matter have been completely ignored by the people who are vociferously arguing against any kind of ambiguity or seeming duality on the matter. But so what?


<< first off, John, great review of Beatles in the 60s!  The comments underneath
the review on the link Robin posted included the factoid that Mr MacDonald
had killed himself (wikipedia sez in 2003) which is quite sad, and his
work-in-progress
on David Bowie hasn't seen the light of day, unfortunately.  He also wrote
about Shostakovich -- could his book have been a source for Vollman's
_Europe Central_? >>

Yes, I deliberately avoided mentioning MacDonald's suicide in the piece, although the quote from The Guardian was taken from their obituary. It would be great to have MacDonald's take on the Beatles remasters, etc. And yes, his book on Bowie would also have been a must-read.

Cheers
J