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

[Michael Bailey]

Ray Easton  wrote:
>
> To reply here to a point John C. makes in another post:
>
>> I think what Mike was hinting at was, for example, the way the themes and
>> even *structure* of GR seems to be, in part, *informed by* the occult, yheet
>> Pynchon also seems to be satirising occultism. Thus what we regarded as a
>> duality or, if you will, paradox.

that was pretty much my purport, yes.

>
> That Pynchon employs the Tarot to give structure to GR, I do not think it
> follows from this fact that Pynchon takes the occult seriously.  Are we
> similarly to conclude that Joyce "believes in" Greek mythology?
>


The distinction that I was making was between "mentioning it
only to satirize it" and "building the work using occult building blocks" -
suggesting that Robin's view of occultism's place in AtD didn't square with
what seems like a certain irreverence in many references.

Robin tackled that from one side: he could be doing both -

Now Ray has noted another weakness in that distinction:
one would have to include the subject in order to satirize it at all.

Rather than shore up the ruins of my argument, I'll move on.

I'm still not sure exactly how it all fits together.

In general, an interest in history admits to an interest in the dead;
an interest in people's motivations is bound to take in spirituality.
A credible recounting leavened with inventions is what great novels are made of.

An interpretation proceeding from the details of the text,
that's what I like.  (And haven't got in any great measure right this minute)