Difference between revisions of "User talk:Bleakhaus"

Revision as of 15:21, 1 February 2007

Hi - I have a larger version of the original cover image. Not sure how to download it, though. If you give me your e-mail address, I can send it, though. Torerye 01:13, 24 November 2006 (PST)

Spoilers: It seems way extreme to call things spoilers just because they refer to later pages, if they reveal nothing to spoil one's enjoyment. I'd like to restore most of the trimmed ones.--Robot 12:04, 5 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks for having my back - too much editing in one day, I guess. Have a happy holiday. --Squidwiggle 03:00, 25 December 2006 (PST)

Howdy Bleakhouse--

So, I agree wholly that the Tunbridge Wells allusion is likely meant to call to mind "Disgusted," but there's certainly textual evidence in favor of my reading, too. Bear with me a sec: back on p. 112, Miles bids

the company consider, in tones of urgency they seldom heard from him, the nature of the skyrocket's ascent, in particular that unseen extension of the visible trail, after the propellant charge burns out, yet before the slow-match has ignited the display--that implied moment of ongoing passage upward, in the dark sky, a linear continuum of points invisible yet present, just before lights by the hundreds appear

a description, he tells them, that is suggestive "of the trajectories of [the Chums'] own lives." Now, Gravity's Rainbow, which covers the ground between the rocket's post-brennschluss screaming to its terminal explosion would seem to cover exactly that part of the rocket life cycle that Miles is describing, and the Chums are at this moment about to learn that they are to head for the Telluric Interior. This is reinforced by the narrator's use of "scherzo" to describe CoCitBotE, scherzos being the jaunty second or third movement of a larger musical composition, that larger composition in this case being, presumably, both the cosmology of the rocket life cycle that Pynchon returns to again and again, and whatever macro-structure he sees his different novels as being contained within. The fact that he opens AtD with "now" should be enough to demonstrate that there is an conscious structural relationship between that dark, disintegrating work and this bright building of a novel.

That, and one can hardly ignore the fact that the narrator on p. 117 claims explicit ownership of CoCitBotE. Elsewhere in AtD, where the narrator steps in explicitly, it seems consistent that his assertions can be understood both as those of the author of the fictive Chums series and as TP himself. This is evident from page one (well, really three), where we, the faithful readers are told we will recognize Darby from earlier books, and indeed we do, though as a juvenile Pig Bodine.

Finally, Pynchon clued us all in, in a big way, to the fact that he's familiar with Amazon's feedback system just this fall.

So, whaddaya say, that constitute textual evidence? I honestly believe my thesis here, but I also honestly believe that it might seem a stretch to another reader. If you still think I'm out on a limb, let's trim back entry simply to mention the existence of Amazon comment. Or, if you want more evidence, I can give you a read of the Chums' underworld adventure and how it relates to GR (which I didn't do here largely cause, well, I'm sure I already sound like a pedantic sot). Or, we can flesh out the CoCitBotE-as-GR assertion more fully so that it doesn't seem like such a stretch. Or, we can copy and paste this whole thing to a discussion page and let the unwashed masses weigh in.

Believe me, I've skimmed enough crackpot associations in this wiki already. (Allusion to Ayn Rand, my ass.) If it's crap, let's cut it. I keep feeling like Lindsay Noseworth chastising an Internet full of Darbies. Why you little . . .

--Squidwiggle 15:45, 17 January 2007 (PST)

Your message of 02/01/07

Hi, Bleakhaus--I don't know if I am doing this right, but I hope it will reach you. Thanks for your surprised-sounding message. My wife tells me the weight loss and pasty skin are unhealthy, but "AtD" has become a bit of an obsession. As in "GR," close reading just keeps revealing new stuff. Everything Pynchon writes is so concrete, the piling up of details and the super-exact pointers to the world outside the novel, that it's really hard to let go for fear there's a good image around the corner. The second time I read "M&D" the experience was the same. (The wife finds the junkpile inventories, foreign phrases and sporadic grossness more than she enjoys, but as long as I don't try reading aloud, I get away with it.) . . . Besides, every time I read the book, I get to read the final sentence again.