Another Greif review

[Jerome Park]

A lot can change in 10 years, that is between V. and GR, and we can see a
shift begin during V. then with TSI, then in Watts, Lot49, so, but I
wouldn't say Pynchon was even then a Lefty, old or new. Agreeing with the
Left on most things doesn't make one a Lefty.

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am ambivalent about my own arguments. You may be more Right than I tried
> to argue. I was attempting to define what might be Left or Liberal but
> nothing may really apply. ....the anti-Bomb ( d'uh) and anti-NIXON and
> anti-WW2 Gravity's Rainbow may have made us--me--overthink the political
> Left.
>
> My only question now is would any cultural or political conservative have
> embraced the human opening up of the sixties as possibility as he seems to?
> I remember many dim but famous bulbs excoriating them almost mercilessly.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agree on deeper conservatives. Smith, Burke, Eliot and others I mentioned.
> As well as some politicians.
> And, since modernism, being a visionary reactionary has changed, right?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 11:08 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We do have to acknowledge that many conservatives not the 1 percent mind
> you Aren't concerned with free markets. There's something deeper. Not the
> Michigan militia types either. The racists nope not them either.
> Who isn't afraid of "the people"? A natural distrust of mass movements and
> institutions. Been that way since the revolution.
> Modern politics has been hacked by modern finance most glaringly in the
> U.S and UK. Everyone rails against the abuses of Wall St and the City, left
> and right.
> I consider myself left of center but I no more believe government than
> most conservatives do.
> I see Pynch as a lifelong distrusted of institutions going back to the SI.
> Hard to think his anarchist leanings haven't grown stronger. What
> other viable choice is left?
>
> rich
>
> On Saturday, May 23, 2015, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggest he was Left, or Liberal, in this way: his critique of History
>> was that it had moved
>> Toward the anti-human. A left liberal believed THAT could have gone
>> differently, and in incremental ways, still could.
>>
>> Conservatives, the Right, generally argue that the natural movement of
>> History is the way of the (free) world, masking Power---that Pynchon bad
>> shit--over the people.
>>
>> I agree that Pynchon transcends prosaic political ( as party, as policy)
>> literalisms.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On May 23, 2015, at 6:44 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what a liberal is, or rather, what was meant when the
>> statement was made, and how we might equate that with the terms Left, Old
>> Left, New Left, but it seems obvious to me, anyway, that young Pynchon, the
>> subject of his SL Introduction, was no kind of Lefty, and that after V., as
>> the author notes on pages 22 and 23, as the author matures and shifts more
>> toward Beat and specifically White Negro to California phase, with the
>> publication of  "The Secret Integration" and the Watts Essay, Liberal, as
>> in Post-JFK/James Bond phase and toward LBJ Great Society phase may be an
>> appropriate description of the author, though with obvious latent issues of
>> Archie Bunkerisms, but not Lefty.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ... the point having yet to have been  made.  I personally don't read
>>> V. as leaning much either way, but the Watts essay + Lot 49 I believe
>>> def. lean left(y), albeit not uncomplicatedly/uncritically so.  @ any
>>> rate, Pynchon doesn't lend himself easily to any political position.
>>> However ...
>>>
>>> "We'd sit and talk for hours," she said. "We'd argue all the time. He
>>> was a liberal and I was a conservative. Of course, he was always
>>> smarter than I was."
>>>
>>> http://www.theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/pynchon.html
>>>
>>> + thanks to Doug Millison for preserving the "on the other hand" quote
>>> I was looking for (+, as I recall, I 1st posted here, to no reaction
>>> [no puns where none intended, to paraphrase S. Beckett] otherwise
>>> whatsoever [?!]) ...
>>>
>>> "Referring to conservative Cornellians (Wolfowitz is a 1965 Cornell
>>> graduate in mathematics), Corn showed his familiarity with university
>>> alumni when he said: 'I was accepted at Cornell and nearly attended.
>>> Thank you for giving us both Thomas Pynchon and Ann Coulter.'"
>>>
>>> http://pynchonoid.blogspot.com/2004/09/pynchon-coulter.html
>>>
>>> http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/9.23.04/Corn-Lowry_debate.html
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, here's an unexpected namedrop I found while poking around ...
>>>
>>> "Among the graduates of the Ivy League Cornell are Ruth Bader
>>> Ginsburg, Thomas Pynchon, Paul Wolfowitz, E.B. White, Sanford I.
>>> Weill, Floyd Abrams, Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Ginsburg, Janet Reno,
>>> Henry Heimlich and Harold Bloom."
>>>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2009-03-04.html
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Did someone say a collection of Pynchon's essays and letters, in
>>> > chronological order had been collected and published?
>>> >
>>> > In 66, that is, three years after V., Pynchon groping through white
>>> negro
>>> > phase. Lot49, Watts.
>>> >
>>> > In the SL Introduction (1984) and Luddite (1984), we see a shift
>>> emerging as
>>> > Pynchon says, "It may yet turn out that racial differences are not as
>>> basic
>>> > as questions of money and power (page 11 top), and in that same Intro
>>> he
>>> > reads his own stories noting and taking interest in class struggle,
>>> but he's
>>> > not there yet.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not gonna dig into V. again to make the point.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:28 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150523/2981a218/attachment.html>