CoL49 Chapter 4

[Joseph Tracy]

> On Jun 16, 2024, at 1:23 AM, Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There’s a lot in there, that’s for sure.
> It’s been said before, you’re both right - but wait, there’s more (-;
> 
> - not just American, but human nature
> - multiple ways to interpret
> - Easter eggs
> - intertextual references (Dandelion Wine eg)
> - intricate plotting
> - callbacks
> - links between works in the oeuvre (“yibble” et al)
> 
> Does anyone have an authoritative reading?
> Do we even desire one?
> - narrow it down like the cattle paths in Chicago in AtD? nah, not that much
> - broaden it out to mean whatever one feels like? that’s obviously not
> right either
> 
> That’s what I like about a group read: I usually know what I think, to
> begin with, but reading other people’s ideas gives me new ideas. Between
> that and the new perspectives from rereading, it refreshes my experience of
> the story. So, thanks for that!
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 3:29 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Absolutely, and there is NOTHING parochial about Pynchon in his works, imo.
>> I think you, David, are
>> correct that this--he---is not about "current events"--that's almost too
>> obvious to say---and, despite
What a writer writes about is what he writes about. As you admit Pynchon writes about many events in history, about individuals in history,  about real people imagined within his story, and in contemporary novels he writes about  events of his own time as you mention below.( “ despite" is your caveat and requires some rigorous defense, I for one tend to think he is multivalent and inclusive rather than putting forth gnostic secrets alone, though perhaps that too).


….despiteJay Gould in this one, Nixon in GR, NY Trump in Bleeding edge, Ben Franklin
a contemporary in M & D,
none of them are about "politics"....but the deep patterns in America, from
Christers--AtD--through Hofstadter's
American conspiracy KIND of insights, he's there. Brilliantly...Originally.
Deeply. I allude to his metaphors and
shit all the time in discussion groups....


  I prefer not to overload the word “about” as I feel David M’s statement does when he says 

"Pynchon doesn’t write about current events or politics. He doesn’t even(just barely) write about historic events. “ 

 Pynchon obviously and demonstrably does include these subjects in his writing and we are invited as readers into a particular view of those things in his novels, often more than one view . What may be his " higher aim” in  including those things ( history, current events, social issues, political ideas, myth along with jokes, songs, human’s stuck and unstuck, humans  likable and loathsome, visits to alternate worlds)  has led to a whole academic and literary genre and hundreds of essays. Claiming it boils down to an unstated higher aim is likely to be a thesis with few takers and limited buy-in.  As soon as you or anyone tries to say what those higher aims are you are likely to find yourself  staring at your own image in the momentarily still waters. 

As Michael Bailey notes above

> Does anyone have an authoritative reading?
> Do we even desire one?
> - narrow it down like the cattle paths in Chicago in AtD? nah, not that much
> - broaden it out to mean whatever one feels like? that’s obviously not
> right either

Somewhere in between, with good attention to the text and a willingness to mine digressions, mythic patterns  and references there is plenty to write and think about and try to understand.

My current work in this read , that is, to bring out a coherent  argument about the way COL 49 refers  among other things to the JFK assassination, is not intended as a definitive or final reading but reflects my own growing sense that such a reading makes sense  of a novel that in many ways does not make a lot of sense without it. It is not the only intention of the novel, but part of a wholistic look at that time and what he saw in it. It is most likely to be acceptable only to those who see that  murderous event as the result of a profound power struggle , and as a turning point in America’s direction. The thing is, this is hardly an outlier viewpoint considering Pynchon’s overall development of  the nature of historic forces ( chronologically arranged)  from M&D ,through V, to ATD to GR, to the more contemporary work. They all posit powerful, violent organizations both political and private using technologies, money and political power for their grandiose aspirations. 

How is Pynchon’s description of the role of the Royal Society and the British nobility, and the Dutch East India Comapany and the Paxton gang not political? How  are these not the events of that time? How are the machinations  of the great game in V  and later in ATD  along with the role of anarchism, unions, the Robber Barons, Bankers, inventors, Pinkertons , the war between Germany and England  not  political? How are Pynchon’s non-fiction writings about Watts, about Luddism and CP Snow, about 1984 and Orwell, without political implications? Politics is hard to define narrowly since politics moves into every area of life, often uninvited, but always remarkably able to daw attention to  new proposals, no matter how terrible, or to defend nasty habits. 




>>