I've gotcher Gabriel Ice right here:

[Robin Landseadel]

Well then excuse me, of course the author shades all his characters  
with various degrees of pun potential and whatnot, al la Jay Ward  
cartoon studios.

I guess I'm pointing to Left Content as opposed to Left Cartoons.  
Pynchon is nothing if not a master of cartoons. I mean seriously—Al- 
Mar_Fuad, pg. 757, Against the Day?

I have hardly cracked DeLeuze 'n' Guattari, "Vineland" has a splendid  
and very telling citation—[Jesus Fucking Christ, you're making me look  
up this shit again]—From an online resource near you!
" . . . Deleuze and Guattari are named in Vineland at the wedding of  
Mafioso Ralph Wayvone's daughter as authors of The Italian Wedding  
Fake Book, to which Billy Barf and Vomitones (disguised as Gino  
Baglione and the Paisans) resort when it becomes clear that they do  
not know any appropriate songs for an Italian wedding. They are only  
mentioned once, without elaboration, and it may be only another  
Pynchonesque throwaway, but if we follow the logic from Sister  
Rochelle's "Let her be" to Heidegger, the Beatles, and the Rolling  
Stones, the reference to Deleuze and Guattari extends the Vineland's  
exploration of how to contend with the "Cosmic Fascist" which has  
contaminated sex, politics, and representation.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cleardot.GIF
Type: image/gif
Size: 44 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131006/de39776b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
Published in 1972, Anti-Oedipus, like "Let it Be" and "Let it Bleed,"  
responds to the perceived catastrophic breakdown of the 60s social  
movements. It is to the political, and libidinal, utopianism of  
Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown what the Weathermen were to the  
earlier communitarian idealism of the SDS. That is, it is a form of  
theoretical terrorism conceived in the collapse of hope in effective  
politics. The major problem Deleuze and Guattari address, and the  
problem which for them invalidates conventional political action and  
belief, is precisely the problem raised by Frenesi and Brock's  
relationship, that of an inner fascism which structures sexuality,  
politics, and representation and which is apparently inseparable from  
these latter structures. As Michel Foucault writes in his Preface to  
Anti-Oedipus,

" . . .the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism. . . . And  
not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini --  
which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so  
effectively -- but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our  
everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire  
the very thing that dominates and exploits us. (xiii) . . ."

The rest of the story:

http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/papers_berger.html

In closing, sexual/politics are a BFD for TRP seeing as "Anti-Oedipus"  
clearly has been on this dude's mind for a long time. And in the  
context of BE—the tight relation between sexual power games and  
political power games—it's a natch.



Now everybody form a conga line and start shakin' their stuff to "In  
The Toilet." . . .



On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Fiona Shnapple wrote:

> Robin,
>
> That Anti Oedipus stuff you mentioned, well, I hope you, or someone,  
> will bring that into this reading. I've read Stefan Mattessich's  
> wonderful essay on Lot49, and I still don't quite get it, how it  
> works in the art of Pynchon, let alone, in Varo. This is my fault  
> not Stephan's, certainly not Pynchon's or Varo's, maybe as you say,  
> it is the un-readable double visions of those brilliant men, and  
> toss in Foucault for good measure, maybe....and maybe I get them and  
> P and Varo, but don't get how the fit together.
>
> But I'm a decent reader of fiction, so, and I can get P when he is  
> satirizing people I know, the times I live in, have lived in, still  
> live in. There is nothing warped about my reading of P's satire of  
> Maxine and her family history.
>
> She turns. She's no Lefty like her Pop. And he too is subjected to  
> satire. It's not the same, of course, as the attack on the golden  
> fangs of Wall Street and Ice, but it is there. Why call it a  
> misreading of satire?