Question for 2010 Lublin conferees (or anyone who can help)

[Paul Mackin]

Hi Matthew

Thanks for for interesting reply.

Yes, I'd kind of assumed your search was for ideas that hadn't been 
written up anywhere. Late night sessions, discussions mostly 
unresolved.  Hard to recall exactly.

And, yes, Pynchon is so full of ideas as to make your head spin. 
Fortunately he throws in enough of the instinctual and sensory to keep 
the reader fully engaged. Even the sex scenes always seem to symbolize 
something else, regardless of how titillating they are in themselves. 
So, lack of knowledge is often a problem in reading Pynchon.  Perhaps 
even Harold Bloom runs into this.  Googling is essential. Thus reading 
Pynchon propagates knowledge.  No question.

But your saying your interest in Pynchon is in the area of the history 
of ideas  makes me wonder if possibly you are seeing the novels as some 
kind of historic actors in the development or reinterpretation  of 
ideas.  That would be something vastly different from the mere 
propagation of knowledge among readers.  A great challenge I would 
think.  In GR for example there would be the separation of the real from 
the delusional.

In any event, best of luck.

P








On 9/19/2011 1:24 PM, Matthew Cissell wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
>      Thanks for the response. I should have made it clear that the term came up in several different discussion periods after the papers had been given, that's to say by people in the audience - unless I'm mistaken. I'll try combing through word searches in the archive as you suggest.
>   
>      The idea of the erudite author (or perhaps better that romantic concept of the genius) as having some hidden wisdom that the reader unveils through the correct reading process is certainly not new to the study of literature so it shouldn't be surprising to find it in studies of Pynchon's work. But as I recall the discussions were not along that line exactly (i.e. some gnosstic truth in the text that will 'free' the reader).
>   
>      I can't remember if the term came up after presentations dealing with AD (though I think it likely), but I seem to recall it having to do with the overwhelming amount of references that require a little scholarly nosing around. I think most would agree that in AD Pynchon throws a lot more at the reader than he does in previous novels (whether you think he does it better or not is another discussion). It's as if the advent of the internet has allowed him to work on a bigger canvas and in more detail. Whether you come from a math&  science background or from a humanities background, you will come to a lot of references that you don't fully get. I mean how many people that are familiar with quaternions will be familiar with labor history in the US, or vice versa?
>   
>      As for the last part...well let me respond like this. Reading is a practice, and in the case of the modern academic that reading is oriented by some theoretical viewpoint. Even a very historically oriented reading (say something in the line of New Historicism) has a theoretical aspect. But i think i know what you mean by "literary theory", makes me think of Theory (very capital T) that brings to mind the usual list of thinkers (often french - that's not meant as a slight to our french collegues) and ideas that baffle and dazzle undergrads until they've learned the discourse well enough to pass as one of the enlightened. There is often, it seems to me, an over-emphasis on close reading that stretches from the New Critics to Derrida. Close reading is a necessary part of literary studies but is not enough in my opinion. My own approach is informed in no small part by what is often referred to as intellectual history ( or the history of ideas),
>   especially the work done by Ernst Cassirrer, Roger Chartier, or Dominic LaCapra. Perhaps after the linguistic turn of the twentieth century, this century will see a turn to the socio-historical.
>   
>      Sorry for the long reply, i just wanted to make things clearer in regard to my query and my thoughts. Thanks again Paul for taking time to respond.
>   
> Ciao
> MCC
>   
>   ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> To: Matthew Cissell<macissell at yahoo.es>;pynchon-l at waste.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Question for 2010 Lublin conferees (or anyone who can help)
>
> On 9/18/2011 2:18 PM, Matthew Cissell wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>            I have a question about some language that came up during the conference last year in Lublin. It's more about a phrase that came up.
>>        I recall that on a few occasions conferees spoke of Pynchon as 'bringing something to our attention' or 'directing our attention' or using oblique references to arouse the reader's curiousity about something. At one point I heard the term "pedagogical Pynchon" used. Does anybody recall any of that? I don't believe I've come across it anywhere in the literature. That's to say that it doesn't seem to be an existing term in the discourse around studies involving Pynchon. (I leave it to others to discuss its utility or lack of.) I plan to refer to the event and the phrase in something I'm working on, but I wouldn't want to use a term without giving proper credit where needed.
>>        Thanks
>> ciao
>> MCC
>>    ps Hope you all had a fine summer.
>>
> Don't know what happened at Lublin but I did query the p-list achieves.  Pedagogic gets 17 hits and didactic gets 176,  Didn't read but a couple of the actual messages.
>
> Through the years here there have been many discussions surrounding the idea of 'what is Pynchon telling us?'  While most eschew this type of thinking in theory, a lot of times readers just can't seem to help it.  The thirst for wisdom is just too powerful.
>
> I don't know where I read it but someone was saying that recent Pynchon studies were emphasizing the "historical" as opposed to literary theory.  Maybe that was what was going on at Lublin.
>
> Dunno the answer.
>
> P
>
>