[2]doktor's pre(in)scriptions

[doktor at primenet.com]

John--

When I got joe v.'s post re "clasms," I struck my forehead with the heel of
my hand.  Duh!  It was fine wordplay, and I must've been more brain-dead
than I thought to've missed it.

So it seems we want the same thing from a book: synthesis between its
emotional and its intellectual appeal.  And emotional appeal is such a
personal thing; we can't tell each other what to feel.  Of the three
"losses" you name, the only one that resonated in my gut at all was Roger
losing Jessica.  That, to me, was not enough of an emotional zinger to
justify all those hundreds of pages.

I also agree with your approach to getting through GR; I started the book
twice before I finally decided not to try to figure things out as I was
going along, and just let Pynchon's elliptical prose wash over me.  GR may
be a book that _demands_ surrender of the rational self, or what I think
zen devotees call "monkey mind."  For me, though, it's this surrender that
makes me detach emotionally from the novel; if I'm not exactly sure what's
happening or why, it's hard for me to empathize with the characters.  This
is probably one of Pynchon's points: don't try to figure everything out,
just remain human.  Keep cool, but care.

When I next re-read GR, I will keep these exchanges you and I have had in
mind; you have made me more amenable to a new perspective on the book.

--Jimmy

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/Insouciance/index.html