What prompted this rereading of Vineland was director/screenwriter Paul Thomas Anderson’s assertion that the Oscar-winning film One Battle After Another was based on Thomas Pynchon’s novel. I had read Vineland several years ago, and I couldn’t see the similarity. For one thing, in the book the character that Leonardo DiCaprio plays is very minor; he shows up for the first fifty or so pages (of an almost four hundred page book) and then is scarcely mentioned again until the end. He never embarks on a quest to find his daughter; that’s a Hollywood add-on. I’m not going to go into a point by point comparison of the book and the film; the differences are too vast and too numerous. Suffice it to say that Anderson took some of the hip, bizarre, flamboyant, outlandish, zany, and anachronistic elements from Pynchon’s novel and used these ingredients to create something with a more traditional, streamlined plot line. The names of people, locations, and groups are all different, and though Pynchon’s story alternates between the sixties and the eighties, the time period of Anderson’s tale is not as evident. In fact it is best, for me at least, to see the novel and the film as two separate entities that have a few things in common but ultimately are only vaguely related.
One Battle After Another has a clear, strong story line, while Pynchon’s appeal is not so much the story as all the intricate gags and wordplay he throws out along the way. And these are the bits that are ultimately not filmable. In my previous review of Vineland, I compared the novel to an extended Cheech and Chong skit, a Quentin Tarantino screenplay, a series of sketches from Monty Python’s Flying Circus or Saturday Night Live, and Doc Brown in Back to the Future throwing anything at all into his time machine, even garbage, to make it go. Pynchon’s style is all of that and more. And, as I wrote in my previous review: “In a way, the style of writing also reminds me of the works of Henry Miller. Especially in Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, Miller takes a description or a topic and makes an art form of adding details, one after the other, phrase after phrase, on and on, long after other writers would have given up and gone to the next plot point. That’s what Pynchon often does in Vineland: he’ll tell you what’s happening, and then add a detail, and then another, and that thought gives way to another, all in a very stream-of-consciousness sort of way. He does this with individual sentences, in paragraphs leading one into another, and sometimes with entire passages. A description of one character leads to their entire life story, and then the life story of another casually mentioned side character, and on and on it goes.”
This time around, even though I’d read the book before, I still sometimes got lost trying to keep track of Pynchon’s wildly eccentric characters. (It was obviously a good film decision to drastically trim these digressions.) I kept going in fascination, spellbound by Pynchon’s dazzling prose expertise, even though a lot of it didn’t seem to make sense. In some parts I can’t even say that it was a pleasure to read; it was more like being on an acid trip, enduring the exaggerated sights and sounds, helpless to break away until I came down.
The phrase pseudo-profundity came to me a few days ago while I was listening to a hit song from the seventies that seemed to have very deep and intricate lyrics. I eventually realized that the lyrics were bullshit; they didn’t make any sense at all. But they had verisimilitude; in other words, they gave the impression of depth and significance without imparting any kind of real worthwhile message. And then I realized that Vineland had a similar sort of pseudo-profundity. Much of it is a kind of literary slapstick, like early Charlie Chaplin before he burst out with masterpieces such as Modern Times.
Would I recommend Vineland? That depends. If you are into gags and wordplay and an idiosyncratic look at the sixties and eighties, maybe. Personally, I found some parts obscure and some parts easier to follow, and I have to confess that I enjoyed the most coherent parts best. I also have to say, though, that in my opinion, there are enough literary gems to make the mining of them worthwhile.





































