Mindless

[Paul Mackin]

> Susan sez:
> "of course we can start a discussion, which is always needed, about
> exactly how mindless the pleasures are in GR.       Course there are
> two stances on the word "mindless"--i can see mindless, in the sense
> of brainless, thoughtless.  but also mindless implys to me a listless
> [heh] lack of direction, thus of meaning.           i think it would be nice
> to talk, and someone has started recently, about how much meaning/morality
> there is in Pynchon.  i want to be careful to separate out the effect,
> which varies of course by person, from the general intent of the works.
> is the Pynchonian moral stance just really complex?"

This is probably only _part_ of what Susan said, but I will have to go with
it. (Is it people's general impression they don't receive _all_ the postings,
as it is mine?)

I would like to second the suggestion that _some_ discussion be
devoted to "meaning" in Pynchon, or possible meanings, or the possibility
of meanings. It's hard to believe that a book attracting as much time
and effort as GR is even remotely "mindless" in the sense of being 
lacking in meaning.

Don't you hate it when people ask you what GR is about? You feel silly
saying it's not _about_ anything. On the other hand you don't want to be
so incorrect as to say it's about WWII or technology or even an ironic 
looks at these things. What exactly, or inexactly, is GR?

Is GR a philosophical novel? Is it an ethical novel? Not in the sense,
of course, of discussing philosophy or having characters who work out
complex ethical situations with each other. But is the book a metaphor
for a philosophical system or outlook, or a moral stance?

I have heard people say (here and elsewhere) that GR changed their lives.
Please tell us how.

I would like to follow my own suggestion, but have no idea where to start. 

				P.