and "mu" to you too

[Phillip P. Muth]

According to 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.  

I feel I should defend myself a bit here.  Rick made the
references to the pun not working and the other "negative
comments" you attribute to me.  I just added the stuff about
Barthes/mu.  I agree with the substances of everything you've
said about the  mu issue tho.

Parke Muth