Another Greif review

Sun May 24 07:33:58 CDT 2015

I'm appreciating the Greif quotation at the top of this thread more all the
time. Thanks to all.

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I hope that those who like criticism have gotten round to Pynchon and the
> Political
> by Samuel Thomas and specifically to the essay or chapter on Resistance
> vs. Withdrawal. Maybe these terms are better than the charged Left and
> Right. Again, in SL Pynchon says the criminally insane since 1945, and that
> would include maniacs from the Left and the Right, so, while Reagan and
> Bush are obviously insane, Brock Vond insanity, Bush's threat to use the
> bomb or tactical nukes ...etc....the insanity is not monopolized by the
> Right, for the Left does more or less the same. So, while the lesser of two
> inanities, the Left is still a position one must withdraw from. But is
> withdrawal possible? Worth it?
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I remember. But what of his equally, no tougher critique of
>> Organized Labor, of the New Left culture in NYC, of Marx in that same work?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreeing with the Left on most things ought to be a definition of being
>>> a Lefty, in our discussion, unless one was so....all-inclusive as to also
>>> agree with the Right on most things. Yes?
>>> He does score on the political Right against the Bircherite and the Ayn
>>> Rander in the early works, remember?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On 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
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150524/cd351ddf/attachment.html>