Roger, Jessica and all things Queer.

[Henry M]

On 25 Nov 96 at 15:21, Andrew Dinn wrote:

> 
> This is damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't doublespeak. Diana
> *pointed out* no such thing. She suggested (or maybe even presumed)
> that this might be the case. The current discussion is attempting to
> *point out* prejudice if and where it exists by locating suitable
> looking bits of text and considering what they signified both now
> and at the time of reading. If `pointing out' were such a
> straightforward thing to do we could all give up reading and
> thinking and merely pander to our current prejudices and taboos.
> 
> Frankly, I find the phrase `it should be no surprise' singularly
> inappropriate in a discussion of `Gravity's Rainbow'. Most of the
> time not only should it be, it actually is very surprising what lies
> under the covers of the book. And the more carefully you study the
> text the more surprises emerge. So, let's stop judging Pynchon by
> the times he was brought up in and start judging Gravity's Rainbow
> by the words on the page (possibly qualified, interpreted, coloured
> by the time in which they were penned, but that's secondary, not
> primary).
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew is correct about letting the text speak fo itself. Why do some
people, who would abhor someone generalizing that a particular person 
neccessarily possesses certain qualities because of that person's 
race or religion or sex, have a hard time with, in this case, a 
writer writing during a particular "era." A benighted era, before 
people were enlightened/PC. <sigh>

Pynchon isn't Nixon. Pynchon isn't Jack Kerouac. 
And no, the man <grin> isn't Allen Ginsburg, either. 

Tick, tick -- DCNY

Keep cool, but care. -- TRP
Aw, what the heck: go bananas. -- HDM

http://www.nicom.com/~gravity