Another Greif review

[John Bailey]

I don't remember any evidence of this either. I'm not disputing you,
just never thought to ask the question.

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
> "he was no Lefty when he wrote V., and this is easy enough to get from
> the novel"
>
> How so?
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pynchon ain't March, but that's another point; the point is, he was no Lefty
>> when he wrote V., and this is easy enough to get from the novel, but P
>> published several essays about his formative years, including the most
>> revealing Intro to the SL collection, but also BDSL Intro, and others, plus
>> the letters that have been made public, and these are proof that P was a
>> conservative white boy, catholic boy who was a-political, and then, like so
>> many of his generation, radicalized artistically and philosophically, and
>> politically and this shift, a California shift, if you will, was not
>> complete in GR, and even took on ironic, ambiguities (if you must) in VL,
>> then moved Left in his major works about workers in Amerika.
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My quick 'take'.
>>>  V shows Pynchon was never an (old) Lefty. From the beginning we
>>> have a world-historical vision of enslavement in history and what we
>>> used to call back in the V. day: alienation.
>>>
>>> Five decades later comes old Lefty, March.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:53 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > JP, I'm interested in this: "It's difficult to argue that V., for
>>> > example, was written by a Lefty"
>>> >
>>> > Can you elaborate? I've never thought about this and am genuinely
>>> > intrigued.
>>> >
>>> > And FWIW I find Pynchon's later writing to be much more ambiguous,
>>> > politically speaking. Let's talk Small vs Big Government, anarchy,
>>> > collectivism, communitarian societies, individualism, corporation
>>> > politics, taxes, etc. My views on all of these are not the views I had
>>> > when I first read (and loved) V. so, yeah, there's that.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> I take issue. Major shifts in his work, get sure. But lotsa deep
>>> >> continuities, ESP re work, power in history and good shit on life.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 17, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Rules in Saint Jerome's theory of literary criticism, outlined by
>>> >> Foucalt in
>>> >> his famous "What is an author?":
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. if among several books attributed to an author one is inferior to
>>> >> the
>>> >> others, it must be withdrawn from the author's works
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. if one book contradicts the doctrine expounded in the others it must
>>> >> be
>>> >> withdrawn
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. if written in a different style, it must be withdrawn
>>> >>
>>> >> Foucault argues that modern criticism still defines authors in the same
>>> >> way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, lots of critics have noted major shifts in Pynchon
>>> >> "doctrine" and
>>> >> in quality and style.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's difficult to argue that V., for example, was written by a Lefty,
>>> >> and
>>> >> surely not by the same Left shifting Pynchon who wrote the SL
>>> >> Introduction
>>> >> where he says that he finds a substrate of economic forces that
>>> >> undermine,
>>> >> then, co-opt the qualities of the working class. In any event, there
>>> >> are
>>> >> clear and major shifts in Pynchon "doctrine", in how he sees work, the
>>> >> workers, the forces that weaken the workers and their champions. Rather
>>> >> than
>>> >> repeat the mantra that the red baiting government dismembered labor,
>>> >> Pynchon
>>> >> shows that forces more powerful than government, labor itself, and the
>>> >> tragic ironies of human relations were largely responsible. The rich
>>> >> and
>>> >> powerful Vibe is no match for the forces of Nature, ours and Hers, but
>>> >> the
>>> >> battle has left the planet bleeding on the edge.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Heikki R
>>> >> <situations.journeys.comedy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Already "Vineland"?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:10 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I think that's generally true but in his recent offerings the
>>> >>>> ambiguity
>>> >>>> pro-offered is less ambiguous
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> or, since one of his 'values' seems to be anti-Either-Orness, one
>>> >>>>> might reject the dichotomy in the choice as so presented and
>>> >>>>> embrace
>>> >>>>> the poised ambiguities of meanings.
>>> >>>>> As a value.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Monte Davis
>>> >>>>> <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>> > "It becomes impossible to declare Pynchon's ultimate 'values'
>>> >>>>> > without
>>> >>>>> > exposing yourself to the embarrassing admission that you may just
>>> >>>>> > want
>>> >>>>> > Pynchon to share your values, and thus settle for one or another
>>> >>>>> > of
>>> >>>>> > his
>>> >>>>> > alternatives on that basis." (Mark Greif)
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > http://www.publicbooks.org/nonfiction/the-trouble-with-modernity
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> -
>>> >>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>
>>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l