and "mu" to you too

[dennis grace]

Hi Vaska,

You elucidate:
>I'm not claiming any profound telepathic powers here, I
>swear I'm not.  I'm simply going on what more than one writer [on more than
>one continent, this isn't some local phenomenon, rilly] has told me -- in
>some exasperation I might add -- about people disregarding the pointers and
>clues they very carefully try to work into their fictions so folk don't
>misread their intent [yes, intent -- practising writers, even of the bona
>fide PoMo variety do use the word in private].  Haven't had the pleasure of
>such conversations with Pynchon himself, but I'd be surprised to learn he
>didn't put the gloss on "mu" for some *very* specific reason.  Such as the
>one Will [and then I] pointed out, perhaps.  And now you accuse me of trying
>to pick a fight -- 

Peace, cousin  I know what you're saying.  Been there myself.  Ever try
arguing with a bunch of Chaucerians?  They will deny what's right before
their manuscript blurred eyes.  Sure, I believe Pynchon had some specific
reasons for including the mu references.  I also believe it's better than
even odds he knew the many possible takes on mu, but he used it anyway--and
without enough pointers to eliminate the other takes from consideration.  

Will's original was an excellent close read--his college English profs would
have been proud.  And, yes, TRP probably did intend at least as much as Will
read.  Parke offered, I thought, an interesting resonance in Barthes, to
which he unfortunately added the first dose of unnecessary critical agon:
claiming the pun is too weak, and that TRP "knows" (talk about your amazing
amateur psychic tricks) the "real" answer isn't mercy.  You returned fire by
insisting upon the wrongheadedness of the Barthes reference.  Hey, Roland B
and the mu critics are all part of our late 20th C literary
conscientiousness, right?  They all affect the way we read TRP's references,
whether TRP specifically intended such an affect or not.

As to my accusation of agonistic criticism, I didn't mean you were trying to
start a fight (I think that would be "antagonistic" criticism, anyway).  I
just get tired of the "no, you're wrong--it means this" critical
methodology.  Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of belligerence.

dgg

_____________________________
Dennis Grace
University of Texas at Austin
English Department
Recovering Medievalist
amazing at mail.utexas.edu

That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.
                                                                            
         --Lyle Lovett