Dan references

[Lemuel Underwing]

P.'s apparent errors when it comes to pop culture references have been
remarked on often on this List, but my favorite quote concerning them
belongs to Edward Mendelson from his essay on GR:
"*Gravity's Rainbow *has on occasion been misunderstood as an endorsement
of popular culture in preference to "high" culture, but Pynchon is equally
insistent on the potential dangers that lie in absorption at either
extreme. The popular modes that Pynchon assimilates into his encyclopedia
of styles are never modes of liberation from the systems of oppression but
are instead a *means* of oppression and extinguishing. In his references to
popular forms, Pynchon incidentally commits historical errors of a kind
absent from his allusions to Rossini or Rilke: he is not, for example,
sufficiently interested in a film like *The Return of Jack Slade* to notice
that its inclusion in *Gravity's Rainbow* is a ten-year anachronism. "


On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Fiona Shnapple <fionashnapple at gmail.com>wrote:

> I guess you know him better than me. I can dig that.
> I skipped a lot of posts, so....but, and maybe it was just he luck of he
> draw, but I ended up reading posts that made these observations about how P
> is old and not that sharp, prone to errors even. Then, I read Richard, and
> I happen to be a SD fan girl, you know you could find me screaming across
> the sky, while chasing the dragon, for that sweet long and large Steely
> Dan, ah, oh, yeah, and I thought he made a point about how We often hum a
> few bars, down on our knees, not the title, but that bunch that pleases the
> ear over and over. Yes, yes, yes, Molly, good golly this Bleeding makes me
> jolly.
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2013, jochen stremmel wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about what you are talking about. And how.
>>
>> You are talking about Thomas Pynchon, right? The man who perhaps wrote
>> one of the 3 best novels of the 20th century. And you don't think to
>> speak of his "huge talent" (he is 76 years old by now), that "we"
>> appreciate, could sound a bit condescendingly? You give him the
>> benefit of poetic licence? I'm sure he will be grateful. You thank
>> Richard who means Pynchon got Steely Dan's titles wrong, in both
>> cases? That's ridiculous in my eyes.
>>
>> In case you don't know it, may I quote the first three paragraphs of
>> Diebold's and Goodwin's "starter kit" to Vineland for you?
>>
>> People read Thomas Pynchon because he's fun. That's why one reads any
>> good novelist, of course, no matter how "literary" or "difficult."
>> Melville is fun, Dickens is fun, Joyce is surely fun.
>>
>> Pynchon, who we rate as one of the greatest novelists of the 20th
>> century, is big fun. For one thing, like all great novelists, he
>> reveals fascinating, underlying truths about the culture, society, and
>> characters in his books -- and his keen intelligence lends weight to
>> these insights. For another, the beauty and grace of Pynchon's writing
>> is fun -- from his gorgeous turns of phrase and extended metaphors to
>> the artfully complicated plots he loves to weave. Also, he's
>> incredibly, shamelessly comical -- "goofy" might be an even better
>> word -- building in terrible/wonderful puns, silly names, and broad
>> slapstick at every possible turn. In addition, he includes an amusing
>> array of elements from popular culture -- comics, horror movies, rock
>> 'n' roll, TV. Finally, Pynchon is fun because he knows so much
>> interesting stuff -- scientific, literary, historical -- and puts so
>> much of it into his books. As a result, reading his novels can be
>> every bit as challenging (and rewarding) as solving a difficult
>> puzzle.
>>
>> There's a down-side to this, of course. Like Joyce, Pynchon can be
>> tough to get into. His plots tend toward the labyrinthine, his best
>> gags often turn on obscure biochemical or mathematical references, and
>> critical concepts in one book may have their origin (and explanation)
>> in another. Even Vineland, his most accessible novel, has confounded
>> many literate readers.
>>
>> But you obviously like Bleeding Edge. I appreciate that.
>>
>> 2013/10/5 Fiona Shnapple <fionashnapple at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Um, no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
>> > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In this example, P does not simply tack on a bunch of words to the
>> song
>> >> > titles.<
>> >>
>> >> Why not say so up front? Because there obviously are no "apparent
>> >> errors", and he doesn't get any titles wrong.
>> >>
>> >> And, please, who are "we", to "appreciate his research, his humor, his
>> >> huge talent." Do you aspire to Kakutani's job? I, for my part, am
>> >> perfectly happy to sit with him at the campfire and let him tell his
>> >> story.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2013/10/5 Fiona Shnapple <fionashnapple at gmail.com>:
>> >> > their website, among many other hilarious writings, contains  a ...
>> When
>> >> > they were finally voted in, they immediately opened a fake auction
>> for
>> >> > the
>> >> > commemorative trophies awarded by a "self-styled 'official' musical
>> >> > honorary
>> >> > organization". Items offered in exchange ranged from cash offers to
>> >> > "somebody's gold teeth" and something simply described as "biological
>> >> > matter".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Music/SteelyDan?from=Main.SteelyDan
>> >> > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Fiona Shnapple <
>> fionashnapple at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is important to look into these apparent erros.
>> >> >> P is certainly not infallible.
>> >> >> And,as you suggest here, Richard, when we give him the benefit of
>> >> >> poetic
>> >> >> licence, we appreciate his research, his humor, his huge talent.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can see so many of scenes read at the 92 Street Y to a typical
>> crowd
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> silver hairs who would be both wild with joy, rolling in the aisles
>> and
>> >> >> groaning, then chatting the deeper meanings up hours, and days
>> later.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In this example, P does not simply tack on a bunch of words to the
>> song
>> >> >> titles. So, what might he be up to here?  The popular song title,
>> what
>> >> >> people call the songs? The refrain, the first line, the first few
>> >> >> notes,
>> >> >> whatever, jar the memory.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the cryptic song title, not to mention the obscure and cryptic
>> puns
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> Steely Dan are ironed out, flatironed here, but uner the street,
>> well,
>> >> >> kinda
>> >> >> like P, where the cult readers and listeners are in on it, there is
>> >> >> meanings...like Katie Lied's first song is Black Friday and on the
>> >> >> cover of
>> >> >> The Royal Scam...etc...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  Looking at how he's funning and punning away, on names and title,
>> on
>> >> >> celebs, and how people use popular song lyrics in conversation,
>> popular
>> >> >> phrases from TV, shop-talk from the Websters, Opera lingo from the
>> >> >> Opera
>> >> >> fans....the list goes on, I think it is useful to point out the
>> >> >> "mistakes",
>> >> >> and then dig into them to find the beauty in the errors.
>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Rich Clavey <antizoyd at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> One thing odd that jumped out at me about BE is, so far I noticed
>> two
>> >> >>> references to Steely Dan songs: Doctor Wu, and The Fez, and in both
>> >> >>> cases
>> >> >>> Pynchon got the titles wrong by adding a bunch of words to them.
>> "Are
>> >> >>> you
>> >> >>> with me Doctor Wu" and "Aint never gonna do it without the Fez on".
>> >> >>> Rich
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131005/09242d51/attachment.html>