IVIV IV & Playboy article

[Robin Landseadel]

On Oct 31, 2009, at 6:40 PM, alice wellintown wrote:

>>> . . . P is a conservative, one could
>>> argue, reactionary . . .
>>
>> One could argue that P is a yo-yo or a crumpet or a steaming pile of
>> dogshit. Of course, those would be all outlier opinions—like yours.
>
> I note that you clipped the word satire from the phrase . . .

I call it editing—I'm pointing towards one of your personal idée fixes.

> . . .desribing your
> beloved author. Of course, this is term you can't even begin to
> underatand.

One thing I understand is that Pynchon's satirical models include the  
Firesign Theater, Cheech & Chong & The Bonzo Dog Band, good  
conservatives, one and all.

> At least you are consistant, you trip over parody and
> irony too. Your reading, Pynchon tips his hat to the hardboiled hacks
> because of some funny-bone affitnity has some legs, but its crippled
> by your quest for political slime behind the fog.

Look, I understand perfectly well that Pynchon constantly mourns over  
what might have been. You describe this as a conservative bent on the  
author's behalf. I don't. You also say that Pynchon's constant  
comments on the paranoiac encroachment of the military industrial  
complex point away from specific political concerns and towards  
political paranoia as pure satire—it's as if you're saying "ignore  
that man behind that curtain!" There's plenty of other commentators  
who disagree with you on that point.   You've cited Charles Hollander  
on various points and I'm citing him on that point in particular.  
There is so much in Inherent Vice that specifically points to the CIA— 
that's not an accident, it's an essential element of the tale and it  
happen to be an element that ties it to the two other California  
novels. In fact, you're the only commentator I've read so far who  
harps on the author's political philosophy as being necessarily &  
essentially conservative. So you're an outlier. Statistically, your  
readings can be thrown out as marginal.

Yes, I see what your saying about romances, yes I can see what your  
talking about when you point to Hawthorne and Melville and their  
influence on Gravity's Rainbow and Against the Day and Mason & Dixon.  
Throw in Cervantes and Dante while you're at it. But the three  
California books are not so much romances—they don't owe as much to  
the authors you've been citing. They owe more to to detective novels.  
Inherent Vice is explicit about that connection and has lots of   
direct connections to Raymond Chandler's novels. I'm re-reading  
Raymond Chandler now and constantly find new echos and connections  
with Inherent Vice in the tales of Philip Marlowe. Inherent Vice is  
not going to fit into the configurations you have predetermined to be  
Pynchon's "serious" pursuits. So you're gonna call it crap. That makes  
you an outlier.