BtZ42 Section 9 (pp 53-60): at the window while he sleeps

Tue May 17 15:22:22 CDT 2016

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I submit that the fear, suspicion, and satire are directed not at
> determinism -- or at science -- but at the ambition for control over other
> people and over the course of history.

I think that's about right. Sounds like something Orwell might
inspire. But P goes much further in his satire because the Elect are
not contnet to control proles and history.

>
> On p. 56, Pointsman frets almost hysterically about Roger: "in his play he
> wrecks the elegant rooms of history*, threatens the idea of cause and effect
> itself... is it the end of history?" Is that Pynchon's own mini-seminar in
> the philosophy of science, or science and society? Or is it the voice of
> someone interested and invested in Slothrop as a step toward predicting or
> averting the V-2s -- something his government paymasters want very much,
> even if it means vivisecting Tyrone?
>
> The portentous "end of history" is just parodic Henry Adams dressing for "My
> funding, my career prospects, and maybe even my Nobel Prize depend on
> showing that there's a meaningful pattern to V-2 impacts, and something that
> can be done about them... and Mexico is denying it!"
>
> * Himmler-Spielsaal, anyone?
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think that in GR Pynchon 'fears' the too-logical determinism of science.
>> Fears (and investigates) that supposed determinism. Allows thru Roger and
>> in other ways---The Counterforce?---a possible 'escape" while
>>
>> Yes, he satirizes everything, everything....esp maybe in GR and AtD.
>> Fully,
>> totally, mind-bogglingly, in a hard to find a footing way....
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:30 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does P fear science? I doubt this is a supportable thesis. He
>>> certainly doesn't condemn it. Nor do all creative souls. So, Monte is
>>> making a point with sarcasm. What point? That foxes and dogs.....?
>>> Science, along with nearly all other institutions of power, of western
>>> culture and history, is subjected to P's satire. So, BTW, is art,
>>> religion, philosophy, mathematics, psychology, history, linguistics,
>>> statistics, Chemistry, economics, physics, biology, philology,
>>> anthropology....and so on. All are satirized with the conventional
>>> weapons of the satirist. For example, the obsession with The Book, is
>>> conventional. So much that P does in GR is not novel. The Book, the
>>> obsession with the Rocket, the quest...etc. One conventional strategy
>>> of the satirist is mock erudition. P loves this tool and uses it
>>> brilliantly. He also makes use of the satirist's cranks and hysterical
>>> characterization. He loves parodistic encyclopedism.
>>>
>>> As Kharpertian says, pp. 108-109, it
>>>
>>> exposes all explanatory codes as partial, problematic, or repressive,
>>> and the rejection of the monological nature of such autonomous codes
>>> leads to radical fusion and fantastic alternatives.
>>>
>>> A Hand to Turn the Time the Menippean Satires of Thomas Pynchon
>>>
>>> Theodore D. Kharpertian
>>>
>>> Kharpertian goes to school on decades of Pyndustry publications and,
>>> in a dense and clear style, shows how the ideas of V. and CL49 are
>>> combinesd in P's masterwork.  Not the first to recognize P as
>>> satirist, more specifically, Menippean Satirist, but a fine work,
>>> dense and clearly composed. Easy to read.
>>>
>>> But we know all this so....
>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Monte writes:
>>> > 58.24: "Pointsman’s... his... a bleakness whenever she meets him.
>>> > Scientist-neutrality." How does that differ from Roger's commitment to
>>> > the
>>> > data and only the data about rocketfalls, which was only recently
>>> > "cheap
>>> > cynicism"...? Or is Roger's version of neutrality less creepy to her
>>> > *because* it makes him uncomfortable even as he insists on it? NB he
>>> > repeatedly, parodically *plays* the mad scientist in exchanges with
>>> > her. If
>>> > I didn't know that Pynchon fears and condemns science like all good
>>> > creative
>>> > souls, I'd think there's some quite interesting ambivalence being
>>> > modeled
>>> > here.
>>> >
>>> > There IS a good mini-essay here on science and Pynchon in GR), which
>>> > Monte
>>> > might write. Focussing leads me to offer
>>> > THIS possible reading: Roger believes that there might be SOMETHING
>>> > ("magic") beyond the "scientific", beyond the measurement of material
>>> > reality. ( One might be reminded of Oedipa's "something beyond the
>>> > visible"
>>> > or not).
>>> >
>>> > Pointsman has no such belief. His science-neutrality is really a
>>> > positivistic belief in nothing but science.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> end of P. 57 -> P. 58
>>> >>
>>> >> Foxes and dogs again, among the latter a painted pointer "alerted by
>>> >> the
>>> >> eternal scent, the explosion over his head always just about to come."
>>> >> Good
>>> >> boy, Tyrone!
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.old-print.com/mas_assets/full3/J5141807/J5141807448.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/02/f0/4302f06cbc44b3b2e6fbc371f51b2bce.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> What makes these images -- standard English fare at the time  for
>>> >> exurban
>>> >> bourgeois as well as country-house aristocracy -- "even more autumnal,
>>> >> necropolitical, than prewar hopes"..? This section has reminded us
>>> >> before
>>> >> and will remind us again that Roger & Jessica's evasion  of the war is
>>> >> temporary and precarious -- but here we're told that golden autumnal
>>> >> meadows
>>> >> are *becoming* a City of the Dead (necropolis). Just a _memento mori_
>>> >> for
>>> >> the lovers, for a nostalgic English self-image? More?
>>> >>
>>> >> 58.11-15: something blocks Roger's speech, and "how does she know...
>>> >> so
>>> >> exactly what Roger meant to say?" (Reinforcing 56.37's "Roger really
>>> >> wants
>>> >> other people to know what he’s talking about. Jessica understands
>>> >> that.") A
>>> >> hug, melting into arousal for both, is more than a consolation prize
>>> >> for
>>> >> "failure to communicate" -- it *is* communication, "mind-to-mind."
>>> >>
>>> >> 58.16 brings us back to the framing night of winter solstice. Perhaps
>>> >> the
>>> >> clinch just above was earlier the same night -- the section began with
>>> >> "pillows in front of the fire. Roger’s clothing... scattered all
>>> >> about." Or
>>> >> perhaps all their nights here are one, off the timeline and off the
>>> >> books.
>>> >>
>>> >> 58.24: "Pointsman’s... his... a bleakness whenever she meets him.
>>> >> Scientist-neutrality." How does that differ from Roger's commitment to
>>> >> the
>>> >> data and only the data about rocketfalls, which was only recently
>>> >> "cheap
>>> >> cynicism"...? Or is Roger's version of neutrality less creepy to her
>>> >> *because* it makes him uncomfortable even as he insists on it? NB he
>>> >> repeatedly, parodically *plays* the mad scientist in exchanges with
>>> >> her. If
>>> >> I didn't know that Pynchon fears and condemns science like all good
>>> >> creative
>>> >> souls, I'd think there's some quite interesting ambivalence being
>>> >> modeled
>>> >> here.
>>> >>
>>> >> 58.33: "And the people who might have been asleep in the empty houses
>>> >> here
>>> >> . .., are they dreaming of cities that shine all over with lamps at
>>> >> night,
>>> >> of Christmases seen again from the vantage of children and not of
>>> >> sheep
>>> >> huddled so vulnerable on their bare hillside, so bleached by the
>>> >> Star’s
>>> >> awful radiance?"
>>> >> Spoilers be damned, this is a sweet foretaste of the Advent evensong
>>> >> coming up three nights from now (p. 127)
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l