CoL49 - Arrabal

[Mark Kohut]

I like this and I may be wrong, as James stated....but I do remember an
early letter of TRP's
which said something like my allusions are clear on the page. I don't
overpack them.
CIA Angleton, per Joseph, is nowhere in this Arrabal allusion I still
say....and so much that that drags in.
Which would, I maintain, change the whole meaning of the text which is what
I meant.

And, again I argue, yes, his fiction is full of allusion but most of it IS
RIGHT THERE in the context of the story.
Look at Rapunzel here in LOt 49......all the variations of the original
story do not seem to matter as does the basic myth--
let down your hair and escape that tower...(by the way, speaking of letting
down one's hair, I now think of Solange
again and her "Change your hair; change your life"....ask a group of smart
women of an age about that line AND off to the
felt races.....I brought it up in my Phlip Roth class when, in a late Roth,
INDIGNATION, Roth spends words on a woman who does that...
who has been bisexual........the identification with hair styles and change
was all over the class........

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 6:08 AM J K Van Nort via Pynchon-l <
pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:

> Joseph's research is interesting at least. How much of this Pynchon
> explored and implied is debatable, but much of it agrees with his oeuvre's
> attitude about anarchism and revolution/resistance.
> I don't agree with Mark when he says:"I don't think TRP put all of that
> into his Arrabal...it kills the story; it adds meaning that distorts the
> story. It buries his narrational meanings...."
>
> How does it "kill the story"? It is a moment that takes up 2 pages, which
> makes a connection with Pierce and provides us with Arrabal's view of him.
> We get some history/snippets of Mexican anarchism and a strange resolve
> from Arrabal: "I'm just a foot soldier. The higher levels have their
> reasons." Anarchism opposes hierarchy, so who would be the higher ups?
> Where is the distortion? There are many rabbit holes in Pynchon that lead
> nowhere or to information that doesn't contribute to some interpretations,
> but that is a characteristic of Pynchon's writing. It's hard to imagine
> that Pynchon randomly chose Jesus or Arrabal. Investigating possible links
> is part of reading Pynchon. Should we not investigate Gould because it
> would distort the narration Mark? Forrester? Dulles? McCarthy?
> What are these narrational meanings being buried? I'm curious, because I
> don't see that at all.
> I also disagree with Joseph when he says:"For Oedipa this is when she
> leaves Pierce and later realizes that Jesus had seen and characterized the
> basic nature of PI that she, until then, had not clearly seen."
>
> I can't make that inference that this beach discussion with Jesus
> enlightens her about Pierce. It may be a link in the chain, but it is not
> the "moment". For me this brings Pierce's Gould-like capitalism into
> glaring clarity for Jesus, which affects her perception as well.
> "She leaves feeling there may be a higher level guiding her quest."
> The text is deliberately ambiguous here. "She carries this thought back
> out into the night with her." It's there; it may be germinating, but she
> expresses no specific feeling of being guided by it. There are points where
> she feels guided by something, by a higher force, but she doesn't
> specifically relate them to this discussion.
> In solidarity,James
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>