BtZ42/10 Jack violating gravity

Tue May 24 14:53:06 CDT 2016

But why foxes? Because the juice of the amanita muscaria mushrooms
(which still grow under the pines of Mount Tabor) could be laced with
ivy juice or wine to make the raiders completely fearless, and because
this variety, when dried, is fox-coloured. So are other mushrooms,
such as the popular chanterelle which the Russians call lisichka,
'little fox'; but to clarify its meaning the Bible specifies 'little
foxes with fire in their tails'. In the Song of Solomon the Shunemite
bride, about to take part in a sacred marriage, urges her lover to
fetch her 'the little foxes that spoil the vines, for my vines have
tender grapes'. She means that Solomon must fortify his manhood with
mushroom-juice laced with wine, the better to enjoy her young beauty.

http://www.math.uci.edu/~vbaranov/nicetexts/eng/mushrooms.html

The book as a whole is a frequently humorous work, in which
fox-hunting, one of Sassoon's major interests, comes to represent the
young man's innocent frame of mind in the years before war broke out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_a_Fox-Hunting_Man

THE DEAD FOX HUNTER by ROBERT GRAVES

http://ww1lit.nsms.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/collections/item/3399

http://72.52.202.216/~fenderse/The-White-Goddess.pdf

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:38 AM, János Széky <miksaapja at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, from my angle (my memory may cheat me but as far as I remember it's
> not alien from Monte's angle) there was nothing wrong with being a Cold War
> warrior until the Vietnam War. I was 9 back then, and Americans were the Bad
> Guys in communist propaganda but still I remember our teacher saying the
> morning after the murder that it was bad news, as "he wanted peace".
> Kennedy, in fact, handled the situation in Berlin perfectly. signed the
> Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and his conduct in the Cuban missile crisis was an
> example of great statesmanship. It was he who proposed the Civil Rights Act.
> And, don't forget, the Camelot myth was only reinforced by Robert Kennedy's
> assassination in 1968 (who was more of a liberal than John). It took a long
> journey in the wilderness for the myth to begin to fray.
>
> "Daffy about history" might refer to "Profiles in Courage".
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:52 GMT+02:00 Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
>>
>> I think we have to remember it is 1944 in this scene, with P's subtle way
>> of anachronistically predicting, satirically, the future, in lots of ways in
>> this book.
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "say, where the heck is that Jack tonight".....I think Pynchon may
>>> already have slyly dissed the war hero Camelot-Fisher King
>>> President-to-be with this line....JFK, the great swimmer who saved his
>>> men, is not there to help Slothrop. Slothrop, an admiring classmate is the
>>> one who thinks he could have saved the harp, Slothrop, who here is on drugs.
>>> Like other resurfaced thoughts, there is lots of wish-fulfillment and
>>> fantasy here, I would argue.
>>>
>>>  "Might Jack have kept it [the harp] from falling?" is only a question,
>>> answered I think as Yes then as a war hero but No later
>>> as a Cold War warrior
>>>
>>> And Slothrop does call him 'daffy about history"...in what way? His ideas
>>> about America's ways of being in History, played out when he was President?
>>> I would suggest Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:55 AM, János Széky <miksaapja at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see no reason why his vision of Kennedy as a martyred political saint
>>>> (or Anti-Nixon) should have changed by 1972. After all, he wrote GR within
>>>> the cultural and political cloud which he mourned/satyrized in Vineland as a
>>>> thing of the past by 1984.
>>>>
>>>> In between, yes, his enthusiasm might have been (or was) gone.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-05-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Kai Frederik Lorentzen
>>>> <lorentzen at hotmail.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if JFK is the quasi-messianic Anti-Nixon here, --- what happened
>>>>> that Pynchon decided to diss him in some of the following books?
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Kennedy's role model James Bond was about to make his name by
>>>>> kicking third-world people around, another extension of the boy's adventure
>>>>> tales a lot of us grew up reading." (SL intro)
>>>>>
>>>>> To make the point Pynchon is making here it is not necessary to mention
>>>>> JFK.
>>>>>
>>>>> "One by one, as other voices joined in, the names began --- some
>>>>> shouted, some accompanied by spit, the old reliable names good for hours of
>>>>> contention, stomach distress and insomnia --- Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy,
>>>>> Nixon, Hoover, Mafia, CIA, Reagan, Kissinger, that collection of names and
>>>>> their tragic interweaving that stood not constellated above in any nightwide
>>>>> remotenesses of light, but below, diminished to the last unfaceable American
>>>>> secret, to be pressed, each time deeper, again and again beneath the meanest
>>>>> of random soles, one blackly fermenting leaf on the forest floor that nobody
>>>>> wanted to turn over, because of all that lived, virulent, waiting, just
>>>>> below." (VL, pp. 371-372)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, maybe you could argue here that Kennedy, perhaps along with
>>>>> Roosevelt, is the good guy in this list of questionable persons and
>>>>> organizations. Or you could say that, by mentioning the Mafia and the CIA,
>>>>> Pynchon is uttering doubts about the official theory on the JFK
>>>>> assassination. But I don't think that the text itself calls for such a
>>>>> reading. Kennedy is not pictured as a victim or counterpart.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the little joke from AtD --- "'Ich Bin Ein Berliner!' (...) 'He has
>>>>> come to believe that he is a certain well-known pastry of Berlin---similar
>>>>> to your own American, as you would say, Jelly-doughnut.'" (p. 626) --- is,
>>>>> in my understanding, not exactly a respectful reference, too ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps Pynchon had the Jack-violating-gravity-motif installed early on
>>>>> in the writing process and was,  for reasons of artistic construction, not
>>>>> able to change it later on, although his enthusiasm for JFK had already been
>>>>> gone?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe the critical passages from later books have, as Robin
>>>>> suggested in 2007, something to do with the history of Pynchon's family?
>>>>>
>>>>> > I'd look deeply into Joe Kennedy's film investments. This was
>>>>> > happening during the very start-up of the era of the talkies and the
>>>>> > Kennedys could have had a hand in taking down Pynchon & Co. <
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0711&msg=122984&sort=date
>>>>>
>>>>> Questions upon questions ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23.05.2016 16:31, János Széky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 65 (Viking)
>>>>>
>>>>> "If anybody could've save the harp, betcha Jack could (...) might Jack
>>>>> have kept it from falling , violated gravity somehow?"
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the secret topical games in GR, left there to discover:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slothrop loses his "silver harp" here (and descends to the underworld
>>>>> like Orpheus; one of P's tacit, non-naming cultural-historical allusions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack Kennedy, one of the very few faultlessly Good Guys in the novel
>>>>> (belonging to the Catholic/Mediterranean side by the way) might have kept it
>>>>> from falling, violating gravity (the central concept).
>>>>>
>>>>> He finds the harp in Part Four, Section 1 (622V), and here Pynchon
>>>>> comes a step closer to naming, quoting from Rilke's Sonnets to Orpheus ("And
>>>>> though Earthliness forget you").
>>>>>
>>>>> And near the very end the harp reemerges again, now complete with the
>>>>> name, in the subchapter Orpheus Pits Down His Harp (754V). And here the
>>>>> protagonist is Nixon, Kennedy's antithesis, the Absolute Bad Guy at the time
>>>>> of writing. Gravity prevails, the Rocket falls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l