M&D linguistic paper

[Todd Meigs]

Well, I tend to agree with dgg (?), and still believe it not only would
make for a fascinating paper but also some extremely entertaining research.
 However, the constraints of time and my professor's insistence that I
stick strictly to linguististics w/in a span of 20 pages are conspiring to
the death of this project, at least for now.  (I imagine, as was suggested
earlier, a dissertation could be framed upon this subject.)  

The ease of the reading this supposed antiquated language and the ability
of the prose to fit, quite comfortably, alongside 20th century mores
intrigues me.  I too feel that this is quite deliberate.  But the fun he
has with it!  I am slowly working my way through M&D, often concluding my
day with a chapter or two under the bedroom lamp, and the dreams which
arise from this reading are quite incredible.  Lost in much of the current
debate in the media seems to be how entertaining it all is!  I am
disappointed to see that many of these "reviewers", even if they think M&D
to be an overwritten piece of garbage, don't see anything in the endless
variety of inventions TRP manages to come up with w/out losing his cool or
breaking a sweat.  (although, maybe that's why he's so reluctant to have
his pix taken.  Never let them see you sweat.)  Even if he is just fucking
with the language (I don't believe he is, but I don't know enough about the
subject to know better) it's a hell of a ride.  I, for one, am jumping on
with both feet, and to hell with what others think.  And i'm not about to
complain about the NY cocktail women sauntering up to my table, managing to
make their uncracked copy of M&D match not only their socks but lipstick,
earrings, and stockings, while they start in on "isn't it awful the way the
poor man is stalked by those nasty reporters?" as I signal for another
martini...

Thanx for all the suggestions tho.  I'll let you know when I start work on
it again.

----------
> From: amazing at mail.utexas.edu
> To: Thomas Vieth <whoge at hotmail.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: M&D linguistic paper
> Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 12:57 PM
> 
> Hmmmm.
> >Todd Meigs writes:
> >> . . . My professor seems to think I will dive into it only to find
> >> the topic runs no deeper then TRP having fun by fucking around with
> >> the words to amuse himself (and us, I suppose).
> 
> and Andrew inserts:
> >I think he may be right. I have just been looking through Pynchon's
> >`tarpaulin'*** in chapters 5-7. He appears to have mixed up several
> >nautical terms and also used words which the OED dates to C19.  If
> >this is typical (and given some anachronisms in the first 4 chapters I
> >suspect it may well be) then, astounding as his vocabulary is, it does
> >not appear to be based on careful scholarship. i.e. he's just fucking
> >around to amuse himself (and us).
> >*** a term for nautical language from another author who was a lover
> >of `tarpaulin', William Golding.
> 
> And Thomas parries with
> >I do not agree. You know, he uses words and phrases of 20C, too, and
> >what for? Well, first, his transitions are so smooth that it definitely
> >is not just fucking around but well thought through. So, why all this?
> >It seems to me that by mixing the styles of different eras in such a
> >smooth fashion suggests that he wants to make of it a more or less
> >homogeneous body of texts which is itself a historical statement, saying
> >we are not so far apart; that there is a link between mid 18C and lat
> >20C, quite possibly in the field of relationships of mysticism and
> >enlightenment (science). But this is also a recurring theme w/TRP.
> 
> I'm probably the last critic who should be saying this--what with my last
> several papers arguing on the side of Sean Burke in favor of allowing the
> author back into discourse, und also wik my absolute disgust with these
> doddering old New Critics always muttering "intentional fallacy" as
though
> it were some sort of ward against the possibility that someone might
point
> out an authorial disagreement with their puerile interpretations--BUT
maybe
> you shouldn't concern yourself so much with what TRP is doing.  Just
> examine the interplay of the language.  You might find the results more
> fruitful than trying to decode TRP's method.
> 
> All of TRP's novels have shown a penchant for mixing languages:
> engineering with psychology with literary discourse with pop culture with
> counterculture et and cetera.  So now we have a Pynchon novel that mixes
> the languages of three centuries and various parts of the worlds.  Hey,
my
> head's still spinning over all the possibilities encompassed in the
> multilingual "mu."
> 
> So, Todd:   illegitimi non carborundum est.
> 
> dgg
> University of Texas at Austin
> Recovering Medievalist
> PostPostModernist
> 
> 
>