Syntax and Words (Re: Film/Books)

[Steven Maas (CUTR)]

Excerpt from what Mark Smith wrote:
> Some people get really interested in the arcane words Pynchon uses, like
> euphroe.  Thats fine.  And it may shed some light on something.  But
> anybody can stick strange words in a novel - its not hard, and its not
> something to fasten on for very long.  Because words by themselves dont
> have energy.  (Neither do symbols, really.)  Etymology is not the point;
> syntax is the point.  Speech patterns and glancing blows, hints and
> shadows, constant spinning of possibilities.

If Pynchon writes about, for example, "Euphroes" and the reader doesn't
know what the hell they are, it's hard to appreciate the syntax.  This is
why I'm interested in learning about the arcane words, the arcane
historical references, and so on.  This is why I appreciate the annotation
that the members of this list provide.  This is why I'm much less
interested in the speculation about what it all *means*, generally
preferring to keep my own counsel there, though list members' thoughts are
often quite informative and/or entertaining. 

	Steve Maas