Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360

[Paul Mackin]

On 3/9/2012 12:12 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
> My thoughts are not facetious in the sense of any personal derision, I am trying to be intellectually feisty and to point out what I disagree with and why without intending any personal affront. I also hope for thoughtful rebuttal, because I want to look at the questions from different angles.
> What I am trying to express with different formal approaches is a sincere problem with the logic of this line of thought that seems to me to be saying that Pynchon is using GR to challenge any  attempt  to understand comprehensive patterns in history, showing that all such attempts amount to paranoid delusions. Is that the gist of what you or Paul are saying or am I off?
>

Speaking for me, I don't think Pynchon is challenging more conventional 
interpretations of history at all--he's not some kind of nut.

He's just being very imaginative in putting a huge amount of emphasis on 
certain aspects of reality--delusion, pornography, mercenary war 
profiteering.  It's his method. Don't know if the Greeks had a word for 
it--maybe it's part synecdoch, part hyperbole. I just say pynchonize.

P







> On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:12 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Joseph Tracy<brook7 at sover.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 3:38 PM, David Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this is Pynchon's source of this concept of a "We-System."
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:19:43 -0400
>>>>> From: Terrance<Lycidas@[omitted]>
>>>>> To: David Morris<fqmorris@[omitted]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: "Creative" paranoia
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Creative paranoia means developing at least as thorough a We-system as a They-system--" GR.638
>>>>>
>>>>> Salvidor Dali was a proponent of Creative Paranoia.
>>>
>>> Your link would be more persuasive if Dali called it creative paranoia rather than critical paranoia. Why is this connection not delusional? Your argument undermines your methods and provides only a maze of self delusion.
>>
>> Your comment is, I assume, facetious.  Otherwise, I will demur without
>> comment.  So unlike me, but necessary in this instance.
>
> My thoughts are not facetious in the sense of any personal derision, but a sincere problem with the logic of this line of thought. I
>
>