Drugs in IV vs. GR

[Victor Lazzarini]

I forgot that Dr Freud was also famously addicted to cocaine.
Re: wikipedia, I found this article interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge

Victor

On 10 Nov 2009, at 10:50, Mark Woollams wrote:

> Per the mighty Wikipedia, for over a thousand years South American  
> indigenous peoples have chewed the coca leaf (Erythroxylon coca), a  
> plant that contains vital nutrients as well as numerous alkaloids,  
> including cocaine...
>
> And...When the Spaniards conquered South America,
> they at first ignored aboriginal claims that the leaf gave them
> strength and energy, and declared the practice of chewing it the work
> of the Devil
>
> Funnily enough the Wikipedia page not only has an image of a person  
> smoking crack cocaine, but has a feature on fruit flavored cocaine.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie>
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 5:23:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Drugs in IV vs. GR
>
> Also in relation to drugs in GR, I often wondered how 'popular' and  
> available was cocaine in the depicted era and location. I always had  
> this impression that the modern form of the drug (powder to be  
> 'snorted') was a late sixties phenomenon. But since I have never  
> read a history of recreational drugs, I don't know. The only thing I  
> know about it are the references to it in Sherlock-Holmes-derived  
> material (I have not read many Conan Doyle originals either, only a  
> couple and they don't go into the subject). So in other words, I'm  
> pretty ignorant in this subject and would love to be enlightened.
>
> Victor
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2009, at 09:42, John Carvill wrote:
>
>> One small, fairly obvious point: GR could have been written without
>> any drug use being depicted, given its ostensible WWII setting. On  
>> the
>> other hand, the setting of IV pretty much demands that habitual drug
>> use be depicted.
>>
>> When Wood picks up on Jones's line about IV being "probably as close
>> to getting stoned as reading a novel can be", and then sneeringly
>> adds, "(which he takes as high praise)", the critic who comes off
>> looking bad is Wood, not Jones. I don't think there's a need to
>> explain why that is.
>
>
>