SLPAD - 30 - Surrealism / Terry Reilly

[Mark Kohut]

My reading of this: “…and became fascinated instead with the simple idea
that
one could combine inside the same frame elements not normally found
together to produce illogical and startling effects.”

is more granular. Combining in sentences, in images and allusions.....

Even if we accept the possible 1984 allusion, I read it this way: Learning
how to write well
was torturous. And, given TRP's love of irony, NOW he thinks he is telling
the truth.......

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:22 AM Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The phrase that leaps out is “Having as yet virtually no access to my dream
> life, I missed the main point of the movement,”
>
>
> I wonder how he would elaborate on that idea, which does seem to have
> eventually had an influence on his writing. There are plenty of dreams,
> especially in _Vineland_ and _Bleeding Edge_ but also in the rest, aren’t
> there?
>
>
>
>                “…and became fascinated instead with the simple idea that
> one could combine inside the same frame elements not normally found
> together to produce illogical and startling effects.”
>
> Stencil and Profane, eg? & then the disparate elements of Stencil episodes
> also.
>
> Then the famous Spike Jones, Jr quote about the C-sharp gunshot, and the
> care needed for managing Surrealist-style contrasts.
>
> He laments a lack of finesse in the assemblages of “The Secret Integration”
> but not as much as earlier errors.
>
>
>
> The Terry Reilly article, after a sampling of SL reviews - including a rare
> disparagement from Richard Poirier, whom I’ve always seen as a stalwart
> supporter - fastens onto the idea of likening the “confessional” tone of
> the Intro to other ‘80s confessional writing.
>
> He treats the Intro as almost another story in the collection, one which
> can be read “straight” as a useful catalog of errors, but also as a
> satirical entry in the “confessional” parade of the era.
>
> I remember in the ‘80s reading the long confessional autobiography of John
> Phillips from The Mamas and the Papas. Not mentioning his daughter
> Mackenzie’s  later revelations, he still managed to give a lot of
> reprehensible details, maintaining a mostly contrite tone. I read it for
> the dirt, and, I guess, so I could tsk-tsk a little, which is enjoyable- I
> think that is why the genre was so popular.
>
> Also, in _Vineland_, Pynchon recounted with satirical humor the producers
> Ernie Triggerman and Sid Liftoff wanting to make Frenesi’s tale into that
> kind of movie, to tap that market.
>
>
> The two takes that most make the Reilly article strong, imho, are
>
> - a comparison of this confessional tone “my youthful ignorance” in the
> Intro with the way Reagan distanced himself from Iran-Contra by claiming
> incompetence (however true that may have been)
>
> - and the suggestion that the particular instantiation of the phrase “Slow
> Learner” for its use as title was drawn from O’Brien’s characterization of
> Winston Smith as a “slow learner” in _1984_ right as Winston finally learns
> - through the mediation of torture - to believe anything he’s told.
>
> With Pynchon’s Intro to _1984_ still in the future, that attribution’s not
> a slam dunk - but considering SL came out in 1984, it’s not far-fetched as
> all that, is it?
>
> Still, that article is mainly a sidelight, for me: my focus is mostly on
> the face-value of the Intro & the stories in conventional terms (with an
> occasional wild notion) and chasing down some of the references, while
> appreciating humor & stuff like that.
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>