the novel is not a sedative

[ray gonne]

Sojourner wrote:
>  TV is comprised of noise, and reading
> induces serenity, even during provocative literature.  Reading brings
> the mind and body into a state of peace, the body resting while the mind
> feeds on its purest foodstuff.  TV agitates the senses, stimulating you
> artificially, deadening your mind. 

ever read mark leyner? steven wright? ted mooney? william t. vollmann?
william burroughs? good stuff that agitates the mind and does not
necessarily bring on a state of peace. i read to be jolted a bit--in
fact, i love to be shocked, thrown to the ground on occassion (sometimes
continually), which is why i dig pynchon so much. i realize you are
separating the intellect from the body in this case, but i remember the
first time i read naked lunch, the way i could feel it in my stomach;
and i remember my first exposure to pynchon in a full sprint of
eloquence, how i fidgeted like a schoolboy on jolt. every artistic
medium is populated by the good, the bad, and the in-between. sorry you
bad-tripped on the simpson's, but it's a damned good show. as for the
novel, like other art forms in this sense, if it doesn't agitate me at
all, it puts me to sleep.
i realize i'm responding to only a part of your post, and that we may
not essentially disagree, but the quoted passage got me thinking.
ray