How seriously can we take what Pynchon is writing outside of his novels?

[Ian Livingston]

Are magic and poetry, then, one and the same? The Romantics (not the band
so much) steadily aligned with Rousseau and the likes of Spencer and
Emerson. Perhaps Alice will step up and speak on the Romanticism of magic.
I remain uncertain of what is to which "magic" truly refers.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> IL>When we gaze in wonder into a forest ecosystem, for instance, is it
> the science or the magic of it that elicits our awe?
>
> "The current opinion that science and poetry are opposed is a delusion. …
> Think you that a drop of water, which to the vulgar eye is but a drop of
> water, loses any thing in the eye of the physicist who knows that its
> elements are held together by a force which, if suddenly liberated, would
> produce a flash of lightning? Think you that what is carelessly looked upon
> by the uninitiated as a mere snow-flake does not suggest higher
> associations to one who has seen through a microscope the wondrously varied
> and elegant forms of snow-crystals? Think you that the rounded rock marked
> with parallel scratches calls up as much poetry in an ignorant mind as in
> the mind of a geologist, who knows that over this rock a glacier slid a
> million years ago? The truth is, that those who have never entered upon
> scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are
> surrounded."
>
> Herbert Spencer, 1855
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hm. What is meant by "magic"? I incline to think of it as a sort of
>> ascendency of meaning over fact--or maybe transcendence of meaning out of
>> fact. But, then I have to wonder what is meant by "fact"--does fact refer
>> to the perceptions of the 5 senses and extensions thereof (telescopes,
>> microscopes, infrared, radio, accelerators, and so on)? Is reality what we
>> think it is? If so, who, or what, is thinking? Does magic truly happen from
>> outside of reality? or within it? Where do realms of possibility and
>> impossibility delimit one another?
>>
>> Why should anyone who has spent a quantity of time researching the role
>> of belief in psychological development and harmony want to discount magic?
>> and is any weakness implied in celebrating the role of magic in the world
>> people inhabit? When we gaze in wonder into a forest ecosystem, for
>> instance, is it the science or the magic of it that elicits our awe?
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 4:13 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1) I think P has blurbed a few burblers. Maybe he liked them, maybe not.
>>> 2) I think he's serious about some kind of magic, but isn't sure if
>>> it's serious, which is why I like it so.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 10:22 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The first question about the seriousness of what Pynchon writes
>>> outside his
>>> > fictions is akin to the question that was bounced through here
>>> recently on
>>> > how authors market themselves and the question "What is an Author?(
>>> > Foucault's famous essay).
>>> >
>>> > The second question is more interesting to me. Is P serious about some
>>> kind
>>> > of Magic, countercultural Magic? I think so. One of the reasons I like
>>> P.
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen
>>> > <lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> My favorite example is the following paragraph from the Stone Junction
>>> >> intro:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Stone Junction's allegiance, however, is to the other kind of magic,
>>> the
>>> >> real stuff---long practiced, all-out, contrary-to-fact, capital M
>>> Magic, not
>>> >> as adventitious spectacle, but as a pursued enterprise, in this very
>>> world
>>> >> we're stuck with, continuing to give readings---analog
>>> indications---of
>>> >> being abroad and at work, somewhere out in it." (p. XIII)
>>> >>
>>> >> Apart from the fact that Stone Junction is a shitty novel, this
>>> sounds a
>>> >> little too enthusiastic to me. Was Tom high when he wrote it? The
>>> words
>>> >> "all-out, contrary-to-fact, capital M Magic" stuck to my mind the
>>> very first
>>> >> I read them, though. And some of the more positive characters in
>>> Pynchon's
>>> >> work - think of Geli, or of Sortilège - seem to be pictured as if they
>>> >> actually have magical respectively psychic powers. Maybe Pynchon
>>> really
>>> >> believes in "capital M Magic." So I'm not sure about this, neither
>>> about the
>>> >> particular passage nor about the problem in general.
>>> >>
>>> >> How seriously can we take what Pynchon is writing outside of his
>>> novels?
>>> >> Discuss!
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Magic is a means of re-opening metaphysical possibilities,
>>> re-enchanting
>>> >> the world, that counters the loss of possibilities lamented by
>>> Cherrycoke
>>> >> and documented throughout Mason & Dixon. Magic is thus a form of what
>>> >> Pynchon in Gravity's Rainbow calls "counterforce," something that
>>> opposes
>>> >> the dominant cultural forces of decadence and entropy. It functions
>>> both as
>>> >> a metaliterary trope for the fictional processes that lead to
>>> recovered
>>> >> metaphysical potential and as a metaphor for the attempts of
>>> characters
>>> >> within the narrative to re-enchant their worlds. This re-enchantment
>>> is,
>>> >> however, partial and fragmentary in that it results in ambiguous
>>> pockets or
>>> >> islands of possibility within a larger context of politico-economic
>>> >> domination and manipulation. Magic in Mason & Dixon takes the form
>>> primarily
>>> >> of feng shui, kabbalism, and magical signs or sacred glyphs. It can be
>>> >> both(,) black magic, investing history with a sense of malevolent but
>>> >> otherworldly conspiracy, and white magic, granting aspects of
>>> America('s)
>>> >> tentative hope and lyric beauty." (Jeffrey Howard: The Anarchist
>>> Miracle and
>>> >> Magic in Mason & Dixon. Pynchon Notes 52/53, 2003, pp. 166-184, here
>>> 176.)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160117/092e6610/attachment.html>