[3] Trying Crying

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu writes:

> How's that acid digesting, Andrew?  I'm glad you concluded your
>  previous post by acknowledging that the little touch of bile I
>  detect has some external source. I wouldn't want you to think I
>  was trying to--provoke--you or anything.

Any bile in my previou spost was all your own work, John. Trying? Oh
yes indeedy.

> I agree with you to the
>  extent that, if I were faced with the impossible choice of having
>  to take only one of two books in the world onto that desert moon of
>  Jupiter where I was to spend the rest of my life, I'd take GR over
>  CL49.  Or if forced at gunpoint to put a little post-it note saying
>  *the greater of the two* on one of those books, I'd put it on GR.
>  The difference between us seems to be that these facts don't imply
>  any flaw in CL49 to me.  Or since you admire the chauvinist Franz
>  so much, let's say one had to choose, oh, Marilyn Monroe vs. Vivian
>  Leigh instead of GR/CL49 as a companion on that desert moon.  One
>  might opt for the greater epic scope of Monroe's beauty, but would
>  hardly fault Leigh's more miniaturized charms as a consequence.

I am not interested in desert island games, nor in chauvinism, so
let's not choose between Monroe and Leigh. However, I do recall trying
to argue that the Franz I admired was not so unsubtle as to merit the
rather over-reductive label of chauvinist.

> A couple of points:
>  (A) I questioned your claim that CL49 is a *pastiche* of a
> detective story. Noting that the word means either (1) an imitation
> or parody, or (2) a hodge-podge, I asked what sense you implied, and
> you snorted back--

> >In sense (1). If it deosn't make any sense I don't know what else to
> >try. Anyone speak Pomeranian?

> Here you are simply wrong, in English.  There is no attempt in CL49
> to parody a detective story.  Just because there's a mystery doesn't
> mean it's a parody.

I didn't suggest it was a parody *just* because there's a mystery.
There are other things about the book which remind me of detective
stories a la Chandler et al.

> Nor is parody of detective story implied just
> because there is a quest, a search--after all, your favorite
> reference point (besides LudWitt) is that arch-quester the Don of La
> Mancha.  Would you say the Quixote is a *pastiche* of a detective
> story?  The Firesign Theater's NICK DANGER is a pastiche of a
> detective story.  Do you understand the difference?

Which difference? There are so many to choose from. Do you mean
between a quest story and a detective story?  I certainly would not
confuse Don Quixote with Chandler if that is what you are asking. But
it sounds to me like you are more interested in asking your question
than getting an answer, trying to pick holes in what I wrote (and
having to work quite hard to do so). Do you think I am interested in
bothering to give a thorough answer to your patronising questions?

> (B) I questioned your claim that the greater length of GR implied
> greater seriousness than CL49.  And got this back

> >It's not a question of what is serious rather what is not. I am merely
> >suggesting that the brevity of TCOL49 should be taken as an indication
> >that it's scope is limited. 

> So you back off from claiming that we can impute greater seriousness
> to GR because it's longer, and instead claim that we can impute LESS
> seriousness to CL49 because it's shorter.  And then you try to
> condescend about the workings of logic?

Well, if what I said added up to what you made of it then I would
merely be guilty of repetition, not illogic. My logic would only be
faulty the second time if it was faulty the first time. Nothing
illogical in the act of repetition per se. And I know you only put
that `back off' in there for effect. Why? Because, logically speaking,
if I did indeed restate my case then that can hardly constitute
`backing off', can it now?  But of course you had to get something in
about me `backing off' otherwise it would not sound like you were
winning, would it now. I will not bother to make my point again,
although clearly it has evaded you.

> When I apply a simple
> reductio ad absurdum to your notion that length is ANY parameter of
> seriousness (like by asking all disingenuously if that means, say,
> that Joyce's short *Araby* is therefore less serious than, say, the
> much longer PILGRIM AT TINKER's CREEK),

> you wheedle back--

I wheedled? So, when I tell you not only *that* but also *how* you are
misinterpreting and misunderstanding my words it's `wheedling'? Right.
Can you think of a reason why I should bother to respond to this crap
with anything other than `fuck off'?

> > I notice that
> >several times you universalize statements I make about GR and TCOL49
> >to be general statements about novels. Not actually implied and
> >exactly the reason why I find comparisons so odious - people use local
> >distinctions and local analogies as grounds for making general
> >distinctions and general analogies.

I said this because I think the issue of length is significant given
how Pynchon writes but do not think it is anything like as significant
for, say, Joyce's writing. At the moment I probably cannot articulate
exactly why I feel this. I might be able to if I sat and thought about
it for a bit but I'm not really interested in discussing the matter
with you. You assumed on several occasions that my comments on these
two Pynchon novels would translate carte blanche to other novelists'
work. Well, they don't and I never thought they did. So, stop trying
to bring thiws red herring back into the argument. It's a boring waste
of time having to get round all this crap.

> Please reread your comment above this one, which is exactly typical
> of how you are reasoning in this exchange.  How can you contradict
> yourself so blithely?  If you claim that brevity *indicates* limited
> scope or seriousness in CL49, how can you NOT be claiming that
> length, universally, is a parameter of scope?

Who says I am contradicting myself?  I believe that Pynchon's best
writing relies upon effects which do not work in small scale. My
original post sketched out some examples of this. I can't be arsed to
do it again. If you can't see it too bad. It's no big deal to me.

> (C) My humorous question in response to this comment of yours
> apparently needs further explanation for you, You had said--
> >> >TCOL49 is . . . quite deliberately a far less ambitious piece
> >> > than GR.

> And I playfully replied--

> >> Not just *deliberately* but *quite* deliberately?  You have that
> on good authority I presume?

> And you said--
> >The authority of the text, perhaps?

> And to my question--
> >> When did you last speak to him?

> You dully replied--
> >I need to speak to him? Are you trying to change the rules in
> >mid-game?

> But of course I was simply tweaking you for presuming to know that
> anything in or about these books is there *deliberately*, since one
> could only know this by asking the author (and even then. who
> knows?). This is the intentional fallacy with a vengeance.  And a
> scary lack of sense of humor to boot.

Well, I thnk it is quite possible for one to know that something has
been placed in a book `deliberately'. For example, do you think that
it is accidental that Slothrop's map overlaps with the V2 hits? Or did
Pynchon add this to the novel by compete fluke? My lack of a sense of
humour is because I consider your `playful' comments to be dull and
plodding. Thanks for the tease, John.

> But it's all cleared up when you admit--
> >Think of me like that Franz.

That was hardly an `admission' - as if I am guilty of something.
Please omit this sort of pathetic niggling (if you bother to reply).

> Be assured, that's exactly how I think of you.  Doesn't stop me from
> enjoying this exchange, though.

Yeah, well like I said, the pleasure ain't exactly mutual.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.