JFK

[Mark Kohut]

At the beginning of C of Lot 49, the tower is everywhere.

By the end, maybe some anarchic space under the tower escapes the tower?

At the beginning of IV, some anarchic space may still be under the tower.

By the end, the tower is everywhere ...again.

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: RE: JFK
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 11:52 AM
> If Pynchon's making oblique
> references worthy of "alternate readings," then they'd only
> be of interest if they refer to what's going on now. 
> The '60s, MKULTRA, Nixon, the CIA, Vietnam, et al have
> pretty much been picked clean.  Part of Hollander's
> reading, if I recall correctly, was that Pynchon was burying
> JFK references (rather than openly writing about Kennedy)
> out of fear and/or paranoia.  Who's he afraid of
> now?  The thing I don't really get about the "THEY" who
> conspired to kill JFK, put Nixon in power, etc. -- are THEY
> still around?  If so, what are THEY up to now? 
> Did THEY put Obama in power, or were they somehow napping on
> the job?  Or maybe the old THEY, which was all about
> fascistic government control has been vanquished by the new
> THEY -- the global corporate model that sees government as a
> mild irritant to be swatted away when it gets uppity. 
> But isn't that the THEY of GR?  I'll be honest:  I
> want lots of government.  It's a lot more accountable
> than global capital, and potentially somewhat more likely to
> instill environment-saving regulations.
> 
> So if TRP's really making hidden references to THEM in IV,
> which THEM is it?  
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: "Carvill, John" <john.carvill at sap.com>
> >
> >
> >> The best counter to what I'm doing is to come up
> with alternate  
> >readings. 
> >
> >I'm not sure I agree with this. Just because I don't
> come up with 'an alternative reading' to yours, doesn't
> forbid me from disagreeing with your reading, does it?
> >
> >>... I simply am following leads in the text and
> seeing where they go.
> >
> >Cool.
> >
> >
> >> By way of example-I always assumed that Charles
> Hollander was over- 
> >reading and projecting when he came up with his "Magic
> Eye" reading of  
> >"The Crying of Lot 49."
> >
> >Well, yeah, he probably was. But his stuff is still
> interesting, and obviously the result of a lot of effort and
> thinking through.
> >
> ><<  After our recent group reading it became
> clear  
> >to me that the co-ordinates in the book-time and place,
> locations and  
> >occupations-pointed to MKULTRA and ... >>
> >
> >Are you saying you'd never given MKULTRA a second
> thought before?
> >
> ><< Inherent Vice is very much in that vein and if
> it is a darker book than the  
> >already dark CoL49 it is because it is noting the time
> that followed  
> >multiple cultural cataclysms. >>
> >
> >Hmmm. I dunno if I'd really call IV a 'darker' book
> than COL49. IV doesn't seem that dark to me. Sure, it points
> to all sorts of historical, political, and societal matters
> which can be viewed as pretty bleak, as is the nature of
> these things. But the book itself is quite light-hearted, I
> reckon. Shot through with dark humour, yes, but not overall
> what you could call a negative or 'dark' piece of work.
> >
> >
> 
>