M&D rambulatory yammerings

Wed Jan 7 10:26:39 CST 2015

Identity (crisis), I hear?
Cherrycoke p.9 p9 The crime of Anonymity....posting about the Stronger
against the Weaker. Clapped in the Tower!   Contrast the Tower is
everywhere, Lot 49......"his name had never been his own"....."owned by
the authorities" ..."entire loss of self kind of thing".....(so nice a
joke on Eastern ego-loss ) and

the whole thing on having no self if "owned' by the Authorities.
Unlike in America.

"went insane' ,so styled, when he lost his 'entire self'.?!?
...that kind of 'mystical experience'
is [outside] of Reason?

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, David Ewers <dsewers at comcast.net> wrote:
> That's what I wonder about: if the taxes were the primary cause of the Revolution, how did the British not consider that as a possibility (especially since, as you say, the impact was more political than economic)?  That makes me wonder if they (the taxes....) weren't a claim on our identity; which makes me think that, with regards to British-ness as opposed to American-ness, at this point we were not both but neither, but were 'up for grabs'.
>
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Becky Lindroos wrote:
>
>> I think the English grab at money from the colonies was to recoup their losses from all their wars - not just those in the Colonies.   The Navigation and other Acts were just overstepping what the colonies could/would take. They'd been doing just fine without all that English interference and money-grubbing.   The Stamp Act (1765) was so bad that New York English businessmen asked for repeal.  The other taxes, tea, sugar, molasses (rum), and of course,  export-import taxes (and shipping via London on British ships was mandated - no exporting to or importing from of via other sources).
>>
>> All this didn't really have much overall economic effect (far worse for business folks in the port cities),   but it had great political effect - political leverage for those who favored independence. The stuff of coffee-shop debates. (heh)
>>
>> And in  1760 (just toward the end of the 7-year war), England had a new king, George III, who was only 25 years old at the time.  With his German background,  he had to prove to Parliament that he was patriotic and he wanted to refresh the coffers which were horrendously depleted.  Parliament provided the bucks.  And he had more wars to fight -
>>
>> Britain fought 14! wars between 1700 and 1776,  11 of which had nothing to do with the Colonies or the Natives in North America.
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, David Ewers <dsewers at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good morning.
>>>
>>> Here are some more of my scattershot thoughts.  My mind tends to throw everything into the same pot and keep stirring, so I can't specify the ingredients as well as some of you (like, I've read my share of philosophy, but privately, and I can never keep track of who's supposed to be contradicting whom...), so I apologize for being a bit slushy.
>>>
>>> I read the subversion to notions of belonging... mentioned by Becky Lindroos as being more "concerned with roads not taken" than upending notions about the road we're on.  I agree with alice malice that there wouldn't be much to write home about if that was all Mr. Pynchon was up to.  But if in M-&D-, the 1760s was a time of some real subversion in the (future) U.S., partly defined by a willingness on the part of the Colonials to chance a temporary 'belonging' vacuum rather than operate as manifestations of other (British) wills... that got filled by revolutionary ideals we still identify with, then conditions might have been right for "roads not taken" (and other special possibilities) to show themselves in ways they don't normally.  I agree; it's those Michelangelo moments, like the end of WWII, or European logic unravelling into WWi (that desperate dada threw itself up against, desperately absurd, serious business) that Mr. Pynchon plays with, with - to me, at least - similarly serious absurdity.
>>>
>>> I'm no expert, but it seems to me that any colonial identity is bound to be more self-consciously transaction-based (a colony being a transaction to begin with) than a more 'organically' formed state.   I wonder, what did the Colonial trade breakdown look like in 1765, as opposed to, say, fifty years earlier?  Any ideas where to look for the British share of Colonial trade relative to the rest (inter-colonial, Native American, etc.) for this period, to see how things were 'trending' (I know trade shot up right around that time, but that was a credit bubble, right? that burst just before the Revolution? (...so was it a bank-led paradigm shift, then?)  Is it possible that the new British taxes were a clumsy way to hold onto the British state's slice of American pie, shrinking just when it was really starting to cook; or a way to hold the minds without the help of a unifying French enemy to not trade with (so taxes as lines of demarcation...), to keep us British when everyone knew better?  Or were the taxes simply pay-back for the British war debt, like everyone says -though the money for that 'world war' was borrowed from British banks, and most of the dying took place in Europe?
>>> On the other (this) side of the coin, after 150 years of British-identification, is it possible that the Colonial identity precipitously become less British, hitting some critical point on a line correlating to British percentage of total economic transactions (the downward-pointing line being the real cause of both the taxes and the tax revolt)?  It's hard for me to imagine that after 150 years of British-identification, a few new taxes - that weren't starving anyone to death, as far as I know...we were fairly flush in those days - would be less palatable than bloody revolution in the minds of regular folks, with no massive land deals on the line, unless we weren't very British.  I have a great, great... grandfather who fought at Bunker Hill, who got talked into invading Canada with Benedict Arnold (before...) out of boredom, and for a few pieces of silver.  Could even that sort of casual "might as well 'f-' the British" type 'consideration' (which I understand was common) exist if we were still at all British?  The British must have known they were losing us before we were lost, right?  So maybe a magical British land-line to reinforce those frayed ones?
>>>
>>> One more random tangent: After reading the Cherrycoke/Cherokee connection here, and thinking to myself that Cherrycoke sounds a bit like Jericho, I followed my sketchy connection to Wikipedia, where I learned that, in Jericho, skulls dating to 6800 BCE were found which had been plastered and painted to look like their original 'occupants'.  These skulls are considered to be the first examples of portraiture in art history.  VERY tenuous, I know, but the idea of of putting 'flesh' on the bones of the dead; isn't that what Cherrycoke is doing?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David Ewers
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 4:24 AM, alice malice wrote:
>>>
>>>> In this, Pynchon resembles Michelangelo, whose art depicts the cusp,
>>>> the moment of crisis. What will unfold from this budding encounter, be
>>>> it God with his finger reaching out to Adam, Moses with his tablets,
>>>> David with his sling. In Michelangelo we have, as Nabokov explains in
>>>> his lectures on the contrast between fiction and other art forms, such
>>>> as painting or sculpture,  the entire work before us to peruse,
>>>> working our eyes around and about, but with pages and pages, so many
>>>> looping back, palimpsesting, subverting all we thought fixed and
>>>> certain, the modern or postmodern fiction is constantly undermining
>>>> certitude of what happened after the crisis, after the times they are
>>>> a changing, with possibilities of what might have been, with fables
>>>> and narratives that pluralize and pull the margins in on the binding
>>>> books of history.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Elisabeth Romberg <eromberg at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the change in paradigm, if that's how you say it. His books seems to
>>>>> take place on The Cusp of when times are a-changing?
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. jan. 2015 kl. 04.26 skrev Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the broad unifying theme of Pynchon's work is American pioneerism.
>>>>> Whether M&D charting the New World, the terrifying onset of the atomic age
>>>>> in GR, the youth subculture of IV or the cybernet startups of BE, Pynchon is
>>>>> fascinated with American life on the frontier of technological and cultural
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um - it's  a fine call but I'll go with Laura about M&D being  "more
>>>>>> American."   The Colonists did not become Americans starting in July of 1776
>>>>>> or in 1775 (Lex & Concord), but about a bit over a decade prior to that.
>>>>>> (And I'd qualify that to say they became more Pennsylvanians or Marylanders
>>>>>> or Virginians than "Americans"  -  as we think of the term.)   And it
>>>>>> depends on what you mean by "American" -  the literal name or the
>>>>>> distinctive culture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's often argued that it was during and just following the French and
>>>>>> Indian War (7-Years War) that the interests and identification of the
>>>>>> British colonists became more and more the interests of the "Americans" in
>>>>>> nature.  The F&I War was between 1754 and 1763 and it set off several
>>>>>> political issues including protection from Indians and  the anti-tax
>>>>>> movement which united enough of the colonists to wage a successful war
>>>>>> against the Brits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some results of the F&I / 7-Years War:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  A LOT more French Catholics fell under British rule further
>>>>>> internationalizing the colonists - and there were already a considerable
>>>>>> number of Dutch in New York and Scots-Irish in Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.  The territories ("frontier") expanded far west beyond the Appalachian
>>>>>> and Allegheny Mountains which may have been British in name,  but new
>>>>>> settlers from the colonies and Canada certainly developed their own
>>>>>> socio-cultural-economic base.  The idea of the "frontier" (and boundaries)
>>>>>> is certainly important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.  The Natives in the West and elsewhere, some allies of the  French some
>>>>>> of the Brits/colonists, lost out tremendously in this expansion.  The Native
>>>>>> tribes supposedly "gained" the Indian Reserve west of the Appalachian and
>>>>>> Allegheny Mountains  (Ohio Valley and Great Lakes areas),  but serious
>>>>>> Indian fighting continued in a large area.  And more and more settlers left
>>>>>> the actual Colonies to settle in the West.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.  To say nothing of the Brits gaining Florida from Spain - (How British
>>>>>> do you think those folks were?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.  The war cost a LOT of money and the Brits thought the Colonists should
>>>>>> pay for it - hence the origins of the American Revolution -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (For more on the above see Fred Anderson's "The War that Made America: A
>>>>>> Short History of the French and Indian War."  (This is a shorter version of
>>>>>> his pretty definitive work - "Crucible of War."  - these are very good books
>>>>>> but they are not "like a novel" in any way - they're history text-type
>>>>>> books.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. The French and Indian War ended the same year Mason & Dixon showed up
>>>>>> in Philadelphia and it was into the area of this new frontier that they
>>>>>> surveyed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **** A considerable amount of this is included in M&D.  French Jesuits,
>>>>>> Natives, surveying, etc.  But it's not the thrust, I don't think -  just
>>>>>> background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Later, the American connection includes the Mason & Dixon line and the
>>>>>> issue of slavery.  This is what most Americans who know anything about the
>>>>>> country's history think of when they consider the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Way too much info - sorry - I got into my thing -
>>>>>> Bekah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LK > about two Brits making their way across an American landscape when
>>>>>>> it was still ostensibly British. In a way, it's about the moment when the
>>>>>>> British handed over the baton of colonialism to the Americans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if "more American" or "less American" are useful measures at
>>>>>>> all, and especially for M&D. The people in the Atlantic colonies of the
>>>>>>> 1750s Americans very definitely considered themselves British. As with
>>>>>>> speciation in biology, the "separation" is incremental, and most of its
>>>>>>> meaning is projected retrospectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We see the early days of that retrospect, but inevitably our own sense
>>>>>>> of "British" and "American" are freighted with two additional centuries of
>>>>>>> divergence the characters in M&D hadn't known.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> After the disappointment with Vineland (which has since grown in my
>>>>>>> esteem), I was thrilled to read M&D - back to the lush language and deeper
>>>>>>> themes of his earlier books. But all those Caps and ampersands are
>>>>>>> off-putting to any reader, but especially to (let's face it)us stupid
>>>>>>> Americans, who are rarely fluent in a second language (guilty!). The text is
>>>>>>> as off-putting as Chaucer, at first glance - fodder for a college seminar,
>>>>>>> but not, perhaps the book you grab on the way out the door to read on the
>>>>>>> subway. Much as I enjoyed the book, this group read is only my second
>>>>>>> go-round. Looking forward to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it more uniquely American than his other works? Hardly (see stupid
>>>>>>> American reference above). Yes, Mason & Dixon immediately equals the
>>>>>>> Mason-Dixon line in the American mind. My first thought on seeing the title
>>>>>>> was that it was going to be a novel about the Civil War. And of course, that
>>>>>>> looms over the whole book, which is very much about borders as instruments
>>>>>>> of racism and colonialism. But it's about two Brits making their way across
>>>>>>> an American landscape when it was still ostensibly British. In a way, it's
>>>>>>> about the moment when the British handed over the baton of colonialism to
>>>>>>> the Americans. The line at the time it was drawn was purely a British bit of
>>>>>>> business. Most Americans are surprised that it's between Pennsylvania and
>>>>>>> Maryland, assuming that it's somehow much farther down south.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark, you're a Pennsylvanian? Does crossing the border into Maryland
>>>>>>> have any particular significance for you? I'm guessing not much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mason & Dixon is about the significance of a line, just as V is about
>>>>>>> the convergence of two lines, and Gravity's Rainbow is about the parabola.
>>>>>>> Pynchon loves geometry. He may have been attracted to the story because of
>>>>>>> the line. But in finishing it when he did, after becoming a husband and
>>>>>>> father, it became something else - a novel of family and friendship -
>>>>>>> something he was grasping at in Vineland, but perfected here. Between
>>>>>>> geometry, racism, colonialism and affection - don't think there's anything
>>>>>>> uniquely American in M&D. Vineland, ATD and IV are all more American, in my
>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Jan 4, 2015 5:49 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd love to hear some words from those who already hold this book
>>>>>>>> close to their hearts. There are a lot of veteran P-listers who put
>>>>>>>> the novel near (even higher than!) Gravity's Rainbow in that friendly
>>>>>>>> fascist framework we call Favourites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me, I've never dig-dug the book the way I dig-do V. or GR or VL or BE
>>>>>>>> but I've always put that down to personal experience or font-size or
>>>>>>>> perhaps cultural materialism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But mostly I've put it down to the fact that I've never been to the US
>>>>>>>> (outside of a TV or cinema screen). I have no deep, internalised,
>>>>>>>> situated knowledge of America and the shouted and whispered
>>>>>>>> conversation it has been having with its divided selves for so many
>>>>>>>> centuries. Some other non-US readers here have professed their
>>>>>>>> appreciation of the book so I'm not claiming this is an American-only
>>>>>>>> novel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STILL: I would really love to hear people throw out a few lines
>>>>>>>> describing what this Pynchon novel is. I want to hear love songs to
>>>>>>>> the thing, though I feel my ear is tinny and poorly tuned. Ring true!
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 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/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l