Pynchon's back catalogue

[Tore Rye Andersen]

I wrote:

> Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the majority of GR,
> a third of M&D and about half of AtD takes place in old Yurrup.

And Rob replied:

> A third of M&D you say? So "America" (pp. 257-713) is Europe in your
> book? 
 
Nope, and that's why I didn't write "two thirds." Duh. Do the math.
 
> And the Chicago World Fair in AtD? Right-o.
 
Uh, no, but would you say that half of AtD takes place in Chicago? May
I suggest reading past page 50. The action does move beyond Chicago, you
know: to the rest of America, to Mexico, to Europe, and to Asia; to the
World, in fact. Or rather: Maybe it's not the world, but with a minor 
adjustment or two it's what the world might be. World history, in other
words, or perhaps more accurately: virtual world history. Or is that just 
me being Eurocentric again?

> ... And I'm not sure that I agree that "the Zone" in GR, let alone the
> majority of Part 4, is actually "Europe" in any real sense of a
> continuous or intact historical, cultural or social identity.

Whatever. But why are you so busy in another thread arguing about the
presence of Poland in GR, then? Or maybe Poland isn't really a country in 
Europe, but only a state of mind?
 
> But my point is that the notion of a "World Historical Project" which
> you're putting forward is anathema to the historical sensibility
> revealed in the novels, which is always trying to get outside the
> Eurocentric worldview and present the course and consequences of
> history from the perspectives of the colonised and the oppressed, the
> minorities and the marginalised.

You know, we are in absolute agreement here. But my point is that the
marginalized and the minorities have been colonised and oppressed by
SOMEONE (mostly Europe), and that this oppression is a very important
part - a crucial part - of the equation. Hence, saying that Europe
plays a major part in Pynchon's novels is not the same as saying that
the novels are written from Europe's point of view. Which is why I reacted
so strongly at being called Eurocentric, which in my neck of the woods
equals a slap in the face. My construction is anything *but* Eurocentric.
If anything it argues that Eurocentrism is wrong.

> Essentially you're just classifying them into the longer texts and the
> shorter texts. Which is fine and dandy, but there are other ways of
> apprehending and appreciating the works.

Sure thing, but am I not allowed to present my own carve-up? Carving up 
Pynchon's texts into clearly defined categories is a fool's errand, as I 
acknowledge in my original mail: 
 
"Squeezing huge, uncategorizable novels into neat litttle boxes? Heck, count me in!"
 
- and Doug's view of Pynchon's works as one big book is at least as valid as
my own construction here, but as a Western man I cannot abide that *openness*:
it is terror to me. Hence my particular carve-up, which I find a valid way of 
"apprehending and appreciating the works," and which I'll stand by any old day.
 
Tore
_________________________________________________________________
Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx