The revolutionaries of May

[Tore Rye Andersen]

John (in response to Janos):

> The more I think about it, and factor in your comments, this popular critical 
> idea of Inherent Vice being part 3 of a California trilogy makes less and less 
> sense. If anything, I'd say that IV is (obviously) very close to Vineland, in a 
> lot of ways, yet seems (to me, right now) relatively distant to COL49. Which would 
> mean, if there's any kind of LA/California trilogy to be triangulated, then it's 
> GR/VL/IV, rather than COL49/VL/IV.
 
I absolutely agree that IV has much more to do with Vineland than with Lot 49, and
I also think that IV can profitably be read for its portrait of the time and place
where GR was written. I do think it a bit of a stretch, though, to place GR in some
kind of LA/California trilogy. Of course there are no rules against placing a novel 
in different trilogies, but still I'd argue that if GR does belong in a trilogy, it
properly belongs in the world-historical trilogy of GR/M&D/AtD. More on this here:
 
http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0810&msg=129436&sort=date
 
And after composing this mail, I just noticed that Dave has just made more or less 
the same argument - "a bit of redundancy so that the message would not be lost" (GR, 322)
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx