Another Greif review

Sat May 23 23:04:53 CDT 2015

I think it's just plain difficult to nail Pynchon down to anything (up
to/including "the" meaning of any given word).  But he sure didn't
like Nixon, Reagan or either of the Bushes.

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:51 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem here is Lefty versus Righty without bringing in
> all those other axioms Dave mentions...
>
> More fruitful to think of different scales of conservative versus
> progressive, anarchistic versus authoritarian, individualistic versus
> communitarian/collectivist? In terms of the books, I'd say for sure.
> There are Lefties and Righties in them but that opposition is never
> the structuring dialectic.
>
> The anarchist question is the most interesting one from COL49 to GR to
> AtD, I think. GR is so formally anarchic, but AtD really seems to
> problematise the anarchist dream and is more pro-union, organised
> action and community spirit. Go team!
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dave Monroe
> <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have yet to see all too much actual textual evidence of much of
>> anything here yet.  The possible ... say, nigh unto sinister
>> character of McCS has been argued here before (way before ,,,).  I
>> tend not to disagree w/ the ... ambiguity? multivalence, more likely,
>> of most anything the Pynchon's written (or, hopefully, will write).
>> But arguing that Pynchon is "a lefty" is one thing; "not lefty,"
>> however, is not equivalent to "righty" (and vicey versey).  But it's
>> difficult @ best (hence my puzzlement over that Cornell conservative
>> comment) to read him as a mainstream American conservative, against
>> whichever (historical et al.) context each of the novels were written.
>> He may share certain interests (e.g., anarchism) w/ certain strands of
>> non-mainstream American conservatism (again, given ...), but then
>> again, so do many (non-mainstream) liberals/"Lefties" (and I oughtta
>> know, I get caught in the crossfire often enough amongst my friends
>> alone ...).
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l