Re: ma gavte. . .
Pierrot65@aol.com
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
Paul --
Two quick reactions from the left and right-handed Bananafish Annex:
1) We agree totally with your statement: "Bring back meaning." As it is
early, and this cub reporter is on a deadline, the only thing that comes to
mind immediately is political correctness. One of the great big huge problems
of modernism, one of the great big huge causes of the modern fragmentation,
is the breakdown of communication, and political correctness -- the use of
euphemism to avoid any potential hurt feelings on any side -- is the champion
of communication breakdown. You can't have an honest dialogue when you check
precise statements at the door in favor of phony Boomer shorthand. Again,
apologies for slipping out of the Salinger canon (which we have all done way
too much recently), but the perfect, pristine representation of communication
breakdown in the modern world is Eliot's Waste Land -- the different
languages used (some of them ancient and obscure to the point of footnote ad
infinitum), the different characters and mythologies, and the switching
back-and-forth rapidly between them (eg. from Tiresius [Greek] to the Hanged
Man [Christian and/or Tarot, probably both]), the switch in periods from the
sitting rooms of pre-WW1 to the devastation of the bodies in the Thames and
all the young men lost in the Great War ... This entire great work of art is
a representation of the loss of the ability to communicate in the modern
world. So in that sense the "meaning", I think, is in the process of
diagnosing the problem -- the meaning is in the structural make-up of the
poem -- God is in the details, sort of. The Waste Land has been a struggle
for a long time -- what do you do with it besides admire its author's genius?
I think that is really the question artists have been struggling with ever
since modernism's heyday -- where do you find meaning, how do you make a
statement of truth, what do you stand for in this modern world of factories
and business luncheons and increasing personal fragmentation (ie. the victory
of individualism, to the detriment of community -- just count the minivans
passing by your driveway)? There have obviously been some who have succeeded
in finding meaning -- Catcher, obviously, Flannery O'Connor, and more that we
can't think of at the moment. (Ha ha, even here in the Banana Annex we are
occasionally speaking two different languages, so the struggle goes on (: )
2) We think of Thomas Pynchon and Gravity's Rainbow, which is both an
amazing, perfect title, and the perfect postmodern statement. What Gravity's
Rainbow is, to us at least, is an extremely elaborate maze at the heart of
which is ... nothing. It is a long, clever, brilliant chase after nothingness
-- it is a VERY long path leading toward the knowledge that there is no
knowledge to be found (according to Pynchon, who may very well be the
smartest man alive). So in this sense, a successful work of art in our times
makes the search for meaning interesting, even if the pot at the end of
gravity's rainbow is filled with sod. And what is gravity's rainbow, after
all, if not the life cycle -- we are permanently held to earth -- ashes to
ashes, dust to dust -- we rise from nothingness, soar for a while, and then
return, the arc of birth, life and death. Meaning, at this point in human
evolution, may just be the self-knowledge that we all have to die. God, that
sounds very depressing for this early in the morning, so here is a smile from
the two of us to all of you: (:
Mirjam and Rick