M&D Deep Duck 7-9: Why doesn't Mason sleep with Austra?
Keith Davis
kbob42 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 18:49:12 CST 2015
Excellent
Www.innergroovemusic.com
Sent from Beyond the Zero
> On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
> Yes we have a bizarre phenomena where the controlling media interests funded by commercial interests have managed with practice to gain a kind of dominance over reality and particularly causality that is not consistent with any shared moral rules. If not the omniscient narrator, these storytellers have become a reasonably omnipotent narrator, so that what didn't happen can be made to have happened. But if physics is good for anything it is still powerful enough to let us know that there can be and often is a huge difference between what the media narrators say and what actually happens, and that what actually happens in the realm of the senses and scientific measurement is narrow and precise enough that in many cases we can know who operated the drone, who the missile killed and maimed and who was directly responsible for the rules and decisions about who was targeted and why. And if history is good for anything it is to remind us that pathological liars regularly gain power and political leaders are dangerous unless constrained by calm and deliberative checks and balances.
> I am all for mercy and nonviolence and even think that we have the psychological tools to create safe, low crime societies that share the responsibilities and benefits of human endeavor, but there will be no possibility of saving the current model of civilization from self destruction without some kind of transformative moral accountability. The US continues to avoid this at great peril. Germany and Japan were forced, albeit rather gently to go through that process after WW2 and are examples of large political entities that are peaceable and just, and are trying to adjust technology to human needs rather than use technology as a means of warlike dominion. I am speaking very generally here but I think it basically holds up.
> The greatest problem in coming to a practical consensus on historical causalities that need to be addressed is self righteousness, imperial hubris and the defense of hoarded wealth, rather than the lens or focus which historians use.
>
> That is all up for argument and no one person has a corner on such big issues. For myself trying to use words honestly and consistently so others will understand me, I use the concept of 'history' to mean what actually happened and include false apprehensions in what happened. The knowability of what happened and roughly why is what the study/discipline of historians concerns but is also a basic human concern because of the importance of language, political agency, moral behavior and self reflection. I think all humans should be educated to understand that false understanding is common in every discipline and relationship and there is no shame in changing one's views in a sincere pursuit of accuracy and respectful communication. One of the great contributions of Howard Zinn and other multicultural historians is to include in the accuracy of our picture of history the experience and writings of members of the poor, the working class, the indentured , imprisoned and enslaved and various minority or disenfranchised populations.
>
>
>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But while we're on the subject, what does 'historical' mean, anyway? Seems to me there are the 'things that happen' (tricky enough...; like in the case of Archbishop Romero, do we include just the bullet's encounter with flesh as the 'happening'? or do we include the man pulling the trigger? so, where/when...) and immediately, flowing from these 'things...' in all directions, like waves of light there's the infinite profusion of views those 'things-happening' create which, though they may only be reflections, still mysteriously possess enough causal force to effect 'things that happen' (... so where/when are we no longer defining the thing that happened but defining its reflection...?) <
>>
>>
>> This Nietzschean epistemology is solid and cannot be 'falsified.'
>>
>> The uneasiness it evokes, and I often feel that way too, has to do with the history of the 20th century and the worry that historical responsibility cannot be addressed anymore on basis of such an epistemology.
>>
>> In the science of history (Geschichtswissenschaft) there is the problem of identifying the crucial factor which enables you to speak of 'historical causality.' Is it the agency of political parties and leaders, is it the economy, is it the religion? Or the demography? There's always arbitrariness in the historian's decision. And these decisions do necessarily have a political dimension.
>>
>>
>>> On 05.02.2015 22:54, David Ewers wrote:
>>> Joseph, I was agreeing with you. That's why I wrote Historical Reality (as in One and Only, as in Scriptural, so possess-able by Whomever holds the book, so quite in opposition to your Pynchon-liberated historical realities...), for what it's worth.
>>>
>>> Mark Kohut, I agree with you too. Of course I believe slavery occurred in the 1760s. (I believe it still occurs.) In fact, I see no disagreement here whatsoever; we are definitively of one mind regarding consensus reality.
>>>
>>> I also appreciate Mr. Pynchon's approach to history-fiction; the past (and our Reflections of it) of it being treated with honest reverence in the rigorous search for its 'truth', so rewarding a rarely-rewarded dissatisfaction with cheap insights or wanton conceptual destruction with Something Else (like bent, but not just out of shape...)...blah blah blah...; it's great. But I can sort of tell well enough when he's bullshitting, and when he's not, so I like to leave it at that. I think that's what Mr. Morris' point was?
>>>
>>> But while we're on the subject, what does 'historical' mean, anyway? Seems to me there are the 'things that happen' (tricky enough...; like in the case of Archbishop Romero, do we include just the bullet's encounter with flesh as the 'happening'? or do we include the man pulling the trigger? so, where/when...) and immediately, flowing from these 'things...' in all directions, like waves of light there's the infinite profusion of views those 'things-happening' create which, though they may only be reflections, still mysteriously possess enough causal force to effect 'things that happen' (... so where/when are we no longer defining the thing that happened but defining its reflection...?)
>>>
>>> Which one is history? The happening things or their reflections?
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by saying there is no such thing as historical reality. Was Archbishop Romero Killed or not? Now, after years of procedural disputes and courtroom hearings it is clear who ordered his killing. Surely such concerns for historical reality are quite different than more inherently unanswerable historic questions like the effectiveness of New Deal policies.They are also quite different from the concerns and intentions of fiction.
>>>> I don't believe that life is narrated, but some things actually happen and some don't. The reliability of a narrator is a different question from the question of historical reality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:28 PM, David Ewers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I hear you. But we could also look at it this way: Using '...the task of trying to establish or bash a character's or narrator's reliability in this novel, MD...' as a starting point, and traversing the frustrations that are bound to result from it, so finally coming to the realization of its futility - that there's no such Thing as Historical Reality, and no Reliable Narrator, only lenses and more lenses and mirrors and arbitrary lines..., isn't so futile.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 8:49 AM, David Morris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the task of trying to establish or bash a character's or narrator's reliability in this novel, MD, is an utterly futile task. It will only result in discounting everything that the author has written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joseph Tracy<brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't there an implied difference between Cherrycoke's youthful post revolutionary audience who might not question how he knows this shit and the more canny post-modern readers. Which of these audiences might get the real import is up for grabs. But the fact that the narrative portrays historical figures gives Pynchon's assertion of fictional freedom negotiated through Cherrycoke less encumbrance. Pynchon cares about history deeply and though he uses it for satire he seems also to want to catch us by surprise with historical realities often glossed over or found only in the fine print. These devices tell us he is conscious of narrative issues but allows us to enjoy the ride.
>>>>>> The " think of it like a movie" take seems good advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree with Morris, Becky, terrif guidepost. Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Becky writes: "I think Cherrycoke is *understood* (by the reader) to
>>>>>>> be telling the story to his audience but that's in the background of
>>>>>>> the omniscient narrator parts and he's using his own words back there
>>>>>>> with the kids, not the words we're reading in the less personal (I,
>>>>>>> us, we) sections of the narrative. Cherrycoke introduces a vision or
>>>>>>> something - a flashback, but the omniscient narrator is there at the
>>>>>>> scene."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say that this paragraph of yours is how I think I have been
>>>>>>> reading it. Once Cherrycoke became the frame narrator, I presumed he
>>>>>>> SOMEHOW told the whole story, Pynchon-cagy-like IN some scenes,
>>>>>>> witnessing some scenes he could not have---told to him, if we want to
>>>>>>> pin down how; and for some of the stories that Mason might never tell
>>>>>>> the Reverend, I believe he would, ultimately, after their long
>>>>>>> intimacy, have told Dixon who would recount. That Cherrycoke SOMEHOW
>>>>>>> (part of Pynchon"s magic realism?, so to speak, along with Talking
>>>>>>> Dogs, etc.)) tells the whole story is needed, it seems to me, to
>>>>>>> explain how the Rev's audience would even get a 'whole story'. See p.
>>>>>>> 75, where the Rev comes back to say, "Even by then", etc...implying,
>>>>>>> yes, that he has told his audience of the preceding 'objective'
>>>>>>> omnisciently seen Astronomy stuff at least. And the preceding risqué
>>>>>>> stuff, per Jochen's challenge? Seems so to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is more words on omniscient fictional narration than most want to
>>>>>>> read: "Certain third-person omniscient modes are also classifiable as
>>>>>>> "third person, subjective" modes that switch between the thoughts,
>>>>>>> feelings, etc. of all the characters.This style, in both its limited
>>>>>>> and omniscient variants, became the most popular narrative perspective
>>>>>>> during the 20th century. In contrast to the broad, sweeping
>>>>>>> perspectives seen in many 19th-century novels, third-person subjective
>>>>>>> is sometimes called the "over the shoulder" perspective;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The third-person omniscient narrator is the least capable of being
>>>>>>> unreliable--although the omniscient narrator can have its own
>>>>>>> personality, offering judgments and opinions on the behavior of the
>>>>>>> characters.
>>>>>>> In addition to reinforcing the sense of the narrator as reliable (and
>>>>>>> thus of the story as true), the main advantage of this mode is that it
>>>>>>> is eminently suited to telling huge, sweeping, epic stories, and/or
>>>>>>> complicated stories involving numerous characters."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I do think Jochen is right on my lazy remark that because
>>>>>>> Cherrycoke is an unreliable narrator, Austra's story is therefore
>>>>>>> unreliable. No therefore at all. Jochen, and you and Laura and others
>>>>>>> have to be right about some distinction between Cherrycoke's
>>>>>>> self-confessed unreliability and Pynchon's historical reality. He has
>>>>>>> to, as Jochen repeats---but I'd love him to make the case with
>>>>>>> examples---be writing a real historical novel (of some kind) or else
>>>>>>> there is no ground to his vision, no history there (allusion to: "no
>>>>>>> there there").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that his vision IS contained in the writing that is that
>>>>>>> third-person omniscient narrator but often Not in the events but in
>>>>>>> the prose, the subtexts, the intellectual notions embodied in reasons
>>>>>>> behind the scenes, the words of those scenes, etc.(and his framings
>>>>>>> and unreliabilities hold that vision too. Like an Ampersand)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With talking dogs, mechanical ducks, other things, we cannot be in a
>>>>>>> usual historical novel, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:52 PM, David Morris<fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Think of it like a movie."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Better Pynchon advice could not be had!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DM
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Pynchon-l /http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Pynchon-l /http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l /http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l /http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=nchon-l
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list