Fwd: Another Greif review

[Mark Kohut]

> 
> I prefer ethics to morals (responsibility to others vs. responsibility
> to omeone/thing transcendent), but ... but I'd certainly say that
> Pynchon ... considers ethics, just not straightforwardly, is all (cf.
> Derrida, more an ethicist than a critic, but, most certainly, a
> reader).
> 
> You do know we're offlist now, right?  Feel free to repost to the List
> my response along w/ yrs, if you like.
> 
>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not his book on... (He disses Pynchon ya know, not getting him) ...just a philosopher manque's "understanding" of the life-connected grammar if the word. If right.
>> 
>> How do we--you? mr Perec, all interpret the word "moral"?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On May 25, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John Gardner fan?
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> To Mr. Perec,
>>>> 
>>>> I will argue MORAL, as in moral vision, as in value-based notions about
>>>> humans in history, in life until I am replaced by a machine.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On May 25, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yea, but my point was different, the anxiety and influence on a strong
>>>> reader and writer like Pynchon is different in GR than in his formative
>>>> years. As he explains, he made use of stuff he didn't understand when he was
>>>> young and he paid the price, and his work did, but as he matured it didn't
>>>> matter, his strong readings produced strong writings. That Pynchon may have
>>>> misread, Weber, for example, by GR, doesn't matter anymore.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Christoph Perec <christophperec at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I thought Bloom's point about projecting your values onto literature is
>>>>> that this allows you to "overhear" yourself and so you weigh and consider
>>>>> new possibilities and, if you are critical enough, can learn and grow. The
>>>>> flipside to this of course is that, if you're uncritical, you find agreement
>>>>> from all angles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also I'm confused about the discussion here. Do people think that
>>>>> Pynchon's novels push political/moral/ideological viewpoints? That's
>>>>> definitely not the case, although Pynchon's work is easier than most to find
>>>>> approval of the reader's values from (Dave put up a review of Bleeding Edge
>>>>> by David Auerbach last week which is a good example of this). The power in
>>>>> his writing comes from the tension of various opposing values. He's a writer
>>>>> of koans, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In Bloom's sense, strong  readings of Pynchon or Shakespeare or any other
>>>>>> artist worth the trouble, are those of a reader who finds her own ideas and
>>>>>> values, albeit,  dressed up in clever ambiguities, in the work.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is not the same as the weak reader who enjoys seeing his values
>>>>>> dressed up clever disguises.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But to discover how the artist has fashioned those values into his art,
>>>>>> and how the values have changed over time, and how the art too has changed,
>>>>>> this, it seems to me, requires that we dispense with the reader response or
>>>>>> text as reflection of the reader's values only approach.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the end, if the books are mere reflections of the reader, then we
>>>>>> elevated them to a status they don't deserve. Why read at all if only to
>>>>>> confirm one's values?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l