Ms. Wanda, again

[LARSSON at vax1.mankato.msus.edu]

CHUCK, the world's most [!] invisible robot, writes:
" Let's bet: if Wanda Tinasky (et  al)  isn't                     
dada  Thom I'll eat my copy of Gravity's Rainbow; but if she  is,
you'll  eat yours.  Whatsamatta?  Chicken?  If any of your critic
pals  can make a case that Pynchon is not Wanda, can successfully
rebut my twenty points, let him do it.  Put up or shut up."


Well, it is well-known in philosophical circles that one cannot prove a
negative.  I cannot say that Ms. Wanda is not Pynchon.  Neither can I
say beyond a scintilla of doubt that god or santa does not exist.

So it's a chump's game to start with.

On the other hand, let's go with that thought that someone immersed in the
(or strung into the) Pynchonian dream might ape the many rhetorical 
flourishes cited.  Why does it have to be a Scholar.  Of course it's not
*likely* to be George Will or Willie Buckley, but it cannot be proven that
they haven't really been far craftier bastards than they seem, heh heh.

Perhaps that notorious letter column was simply a ground which gave voice
to an otherwise Mute Inglorious Pynchon.

Barring some documentation (paper, always paper!), Ms. Tinasky, I think,
must remain one of Life's Little Mysteries.


Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)