Is M&D as good as GR???

[Paul Mackin]

Sojourner writes:

At 01:32 PM 9/12/97 -0400, David L. Pelovitz, Ph.D, the distinguished
and happily unprepossed kind and beneficient doctor wrote:

>My view of the early criticism of GR is that a lot of people recognized
>it was important, bu thtey really didn't know what to make of it 
>entirely.  Comparing it to earlier works and tracking down obscure
>references seemed a good way to start.

Curious where you draw this observation from, this generalization.
I find it akin to seeing a Dali painting, and then not feeling you can
enjoy it until you research his background, and then quantify the
symbols and meanings of his paintings.


Not a bit surprising to find two such opposed views on the p-list. To
continue with the medical analogy we wouldn't expect a male gynecologist
to have the same view of female anatomy as the average lecherous male.
But there's a place for each type in our imperfect world.

Incidentally I would never knock an English professor who pays heed to Pynchon
regardless of what kind of heed. I get the impression that in some quarters it's considered not quite respectable to do so. He's still writing after all and who wants to go out on a limb for a still unknown quantity. Better to wait until your subject is dead.

							P.