Manson Cult; was Golden Fang

[Mark Kohut]

I have often thought that one source of Pynchon's 'pointing to' but 'leaving out' is the Wittgenstein behind such leading principles as
"What we cannot say we must pass over in silence." ...directly alluded to in V. but for our artist of the pen on the engineer grid---or is it a pencil?---it is used metaphorically. 

he knows what so many real artists know. Just read Twain saying, "too much thunder and lightning on the page and no one will follow your characters as they run to hide under the bed"..... 

--- On Sun, 9/27/09, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Manson Cult; was Golden Fang
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 3:20 PM
> I hear there was a lot of ferocious
> debate about the exclusion/inclusion of the Holocaust in
> GR.  That occurred before I started lurking on the
> List, but I know it got pretty intense.  Hollander's
> Kennedy assassination subtext for COL49 is another
> biggie.  I don't think either conversation is trivial,
> regardless of which side of these arguments I sympathize
> with.  Here's something I noticed about M&D: 
> Pynchon never mentions Gettysburg, even though it falls
> geographically close to the line.  Of course the battle
> occurred much later than the events in M&D, but
> obviously, to later generations, the Mason-Dixon line would
> come to be most associated with the Civil War and everything
> that followed.  The mere mention of Gettysburg in
> M&D would have activated the Civil War
> association.  It must have been a deliberate choice on
> Pynchon's part not to bring it up.  But our present-day
> knowledge of the later significance of the Line haunts our
> reading of the book.  Gettysburg's omission!
>   is meaningful.  I agree, though, that saying
> that what's omitted is important can easily lead to lots of
> lame-o points, Keith.  Guilty with an explanation.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Keith <keithsz at mac.com>
> 
> >
> >On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:36 AM, kelber at mindspring.com
> wrote:
> >
> >What Pynchon omits is often as important as what he
> includes.
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >While I kind of agree with that, it does nicely cover
> all the bases.
> >
> >Can't go wrong if the hermeneutic can use everything
> you don't say as  
> >a point you're trying to make.
> 
> 
>