Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)

[alice wellintown]

Lacey claims, Pynchon [is] a novelist of ideas with deep political
concerns [...].

Unless we go along with this claim there is little to keep our attention.

But here is the TS:

His fiction warns us about a creeping totalitarianism that since the
Enlightenment has slowly deprived human beings of their dignity and
freedom. Mainly through the use of allegory, he teaches his readers
about the modern organization of power and its terrible inhumanity;
about the insidiously subtle encroachments on individual freedom;
about the history behind this tragic, though hardly inevitable, turn;
and about the choices that remain available to us, despite our
increasing vulnerability to conditioning and other forms of social
control. The complex and unstable narrative form that he employs,
while admittedly frustrating to the reader, reflects the uncertainties
and alienating effects of the postmodern world. Literary scholars have
offered great insights into the form and style of his works. But all
the breathtaking pyrotechnics on display in Pynchon’s fiction should
not prevent interpreters from mining his works for some kind of stable
meaning.


There is a lot to chew on here.

I agree that GR warns of a totalitarianism, indeed, of something far
worse, of which totalitarianism is only one of its many forms, and
that the inhumanity it exacts is insidious.

Qustion 1. even if GR warns of a creeping totalitarianism, does
Pynchon continue this waring with his works after GR?

Question 2. even if GR warns of a creeping totalitarianism, does
Pynchon construct his warning mainly with the use of allegory?

Question 3. what is the "turn"? and how do we avoid it or turn back or
whatever?

Question 4. Does a stable meaning presuppose a stable text?