GW, hepcat

[Meg Larson]

Somewhere in all the fun of late--I shall stop laughing at wells/giordano
sometime tomorrow--I missed this exchange:

John M. sed:
> Now that's a good question fer sure, Vaska. Why indeed this *goof*?
> Obviously I don't know.  I was just responding to J.Siegel's ignorant
> (not a gratuitous insult, but a literal obs.--since he hasn't read the
book) 
> claim that it was an *ignorant error*.  It just seems clear to any
thoughtful reading of the 
> scene that there is some subtle commentary woven into the style of GW's
>  persona.GW uses all sorts of terms and names in a silly or awkward
>  way--the pet names for Martha, the use of *my man* (which we
>  can easily hear w/ an awkward street inflection, ma mayn Gershom).
>   The messuginah mistake fits into this idea of quick portraiture, or
maybe
>  it's just an error.  The point is, like all great writing, Pynchon's
work
>  needs to be read and thought through, with lots of options considered,
>  before being dissed.
> 
> john m
> ***********************
> Vaska writes:
> >
> >John, you describe that scene with such exquisite feel for nuance,
including
> >the "middlin' foolishness" bit, that your message is a joy to read.  So
I'll
> >admit it now: maybe I'm just irrationally stubborn -- always a
possibility
> >with a Taurus -- but both the first and the second time 'round I
scratched
> >my head and thought: is P. relying on our ability to spot GW's goof with
a
> >Yiddish term to signal any of this to us?  Is that why it's there?  
> >
As I make my way through _M&D_, I wonder how many of these little "signals"
are meant, primarily and most importantly, perhaps, to amuse Pynchon, and,
secondarily, to whoever else "gets it"?  I mean, why does it
necessarily--or not--have to be a wink at US (the universal us)?  When I
think of some the best parts of his books, the parts that move me to
laughter or tears, I wonder how he reacts(-ed) when he read what he'd
written?  As a sometime-writer myself, I know that there are things I've
written that are so satisfying (for lack of a better word) that even I have
to admire them.  When I'm in the Zone, I'm *in the Zone* (as my favorite
Detroit Piston Vinnie Johnson used to say); do you s'pose Pynch gets this
feeling now and again?    

I don't know if any of this makes sense; my brain is so flame-broiled that
I'm a-gonna call up a dude I know and see if he's got anything for the head
. . .

If nothing else, Thomas Pynchon, the writer, is one of if not *the* most
sensitive passionate, feeling-est MOFO's ever.  And, somewhere inside
himself, deep perhaps, perhaps not, he knows this.

Yeah, he ain't perfect--so fucking what,
M.