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

[Robin Landseadel]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Carvill, John wrote:

> Yeah, 'rubric' is a cool word.
>
> Since you didn't quote any text in your email, I dunno who you're  
> responding to. But for my part, I certainly didn't mean to flame  
> Robin, or even argue with him. Yep, I sometimes get tired of hearing  
> him repeat  'Chandler...Chandler...Chandler', like some sort of  
> mantra.

Sorry, not that that's about to go away any time soon . . .

To make my point as short, sweet and relevant as possible—the "Us v.  
Them" systems that are central to Pynchon's work remind a lot of the  
"us v. Them" systems in Chandler. Sorry If I am repeating myself.

To be absolutely honest, I really didn't even think much about Howard  
Hughes before reading Inherent Vice. Perhaps Hughes' central role in  
Watergate & Nixon's various political campaigns, the CIA, the military  
industrial complex and Hollywood is all old news to other P-Listers.  
It's all pretty much new to me. Considering how many of these themes  
appear in a lot of Pynchon's books it all struck me as very relevant.

> And yes, he mentions a lot of interesting stuff; what sometimes gets  
> under my skin is the extent to which he (a) mentions it relentlessly  
> (see Chandler/Nick Danger/CIA/etc.), and (b) seems convinced, a la  
> Hollander, that he has discerned some hidden purpose of Pynchon's.

There's three books of Pynchon's that are set in California, set in  
places that appear to be fictional versions of places where the author  
has either lived of spent a lot of time in. All three books have big  
parts for the CIA to play. Right now I can claim no greater knowledge  
than that, but I suspect that there's less research and more drawing  
off of memory in the California books than the other four. I'm still  
gathering information, I'm passing along stuff I think may be relevant.

> I would also note that, while some of Hollander's stuff often seems,  
> to me, to be stretching a fair bit, at least he has thought his  
> theories through, in depth.

He's a better writer and a better thinker than I am.

> And when Hollander emailed this list a while back, he got virtually  
> no response, yet people seem to swallow a lot of Robin's theories  
> whole.

I honestly hope other folks come up with different stuff than I do. I  
understand that at the end of the day what we have here is much more  
of a novelist than a revisionist historian. It's just that I'm snagged  
by the revisionist stuff right now.

> I wouldn't go so far as Monte, who suggests the p-list is turning  
> into the White Visitation, but you can see why he might say that.

I've found Terrance's M.O. very irritating and perhaps over-respond to  
his oppositional ways. So I respond rather vehemently at times. Maybe  
this is what he wants, I really don't know.

> And I don't think it's really..what's the word...not 'fair', but  
> something like that...um, I don't think it's realistic to just way,  
> "if you don't like someone's posts just delete them"; I think we all  
> have a right to comment, even when we're not in agreement with what  
> we're commenting on. To repeat: I wasn't having a go at Robin, or  
> totally discounting what he has to say.

Well, I post a lot, somebody's got to have a go at me. It's just that  
I ask that folks post stuff that's different—if you think what I'm  
posting is bogus then point out how my post is bogus along with more  
satisfactory explications. Use Occam's Razor.

> There are half a dozen other points I could make, but I think I've  
> been negative enough for one day. Maybe even two days, who can say.

Of course there was that migraine I had Friday, Saturday and  
Sunday . . .