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

[malignd at aol.com]

<<He's a writer, not a psychic policeman. He can "believe" anything he 
wants to. What's Prospero to Shakespeare?>>

Don't know why "believe" is in quotes; I said "take seriously."  In any 
case, I don't know: what is Prospero to Shakespeare and what's your 
point, other than the point I seem to be making?  Which is, Prospero 
was useful to Shakespeare and the occult was useful to Pynchon in their 
writing.

<<There's people in their right minds, with proper 
education—everybody's got emotional issues, so you can throw that out 
as "null"—who use the stuff. Some are famous musicians, some are 
writers, lots are poets.>>

"Famous" musicians.  Well.  And writers and poets too.  No further 
defense necessary for taking seriously reading the future from a deck 
of cards or from tossing a handful of sticks ...


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: rubrics (I like that word), wrecking crews and hugfests


On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:16 PM, malignd at aol.com wrote: 
 
> <<I've often wondered how seriously Pynchon takes that sort of > 
thing. Tarot in GR, ferrinstance. But writing occult-informed/> 
inflected works, and satirising occultism, well, it's that sort of > 
duality that makes Pynchon Pynchon.>> 
> 
> I don't know if this is a rhetorical question or not but isn't it a > 
given that Pynchon doesn't--couldn't possibly--take this stuff > 
seriously? 
 
He's a writer, not a psychic policeman. He can "believe" anything he 
wants to. What's Prospero to Shakespeare? 
 
> That Pynchon's belief system includes card reading and Madame > 
Blavatsky and the Rosecrusians, et al? 
 
Pynchon's knowledge base includes card reading and Madame Blavatsky and 
the Rosecrusians. Some say his knowledge of the Kaballah is limited. 
Seems like Pynchon is familiar with at least the "hippie" flavourings 
of these non-scheduled theologies, scryings and pyramid schemes. 
 
> Does anyone--leave alone Pynchon--in his right mind, with a proper > 
education, with no emotional issues, believe in this stuff? 
 
There's people in their right minds, with proper education—everybody's 
got emotional issues, so you can throw that out as "null"—who use the 
stuff. Some are famous musicians, some are writers, lots are poets. 
 
> I think it suits his novelistic purposes.  It adds a color. 
 
I think it was part of the milieu in which he lived. It's more than 
local color or grace-notes in his books, he takes it further. 
 
> Hemingway said he liked Catholicism because the pageantry it > 
reminded him of bullfights. 
 
James Joyce said a lot of odd things too, but he'd throw curses and 
spells in with the best of them. It's a well Pynchon keeps going to and 
one can't help but notice a certain innate attraction to the whole 
shell game. . . 
 
   Looked into closely in her time both by Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir 
   William Crookes, she had taken transatlantic liners to Boston to 
   visit Mrs. Piper, traveled to Naples to sit with Eusapia Palladino 
   (whom she was later to defend against charges of fraud at the 
   infamous Cambridge experiments), could indeed be said to've 
   attended some of the most celebrated seances of the day, the 
   list of which was about to include one arranged by the 
   ubiquitous and outspoken Mr. W. T. Stead, at which the medium 
   Mrs. Burchell would witness in great detail the assassination of 
   Alexander and Draga Obrenovich, the King and Queen of 
   Serbia, three months before it even happened. She was known 
   to the T.W.LT. as an "ecstatica," a classification enjoying 
   apparently somewhat more respect than a common medium. 
 
   "We don't go off into ordinary trances," Madame E. explained. 
   "More the ecstatic type," Lew supposed. 
 
   He was rewarded with a steady and speculative gaze. "I should 
   be happy to demonstrate, perhaps on some night less 
   exhausting than this." 
   AtD, 228=