tsk tsk pt.3

[Schwitterz]

Paul Mackin wrote:

> Thanks to Dana for trying to help me see what she was saying. I think I get some of it
> anyway and not just davemarc's point (good as it is).
>
> It definitely bothers me that the history of the world is one of injustice.  Still think
> however that the vitality of our writing (including Pynchon's) depends on using the language that is now part of us to its full expressive capacity letting the chips fall where they may
> and devil take the hindmost.

But when the chips fall, is it not important to be honest/conscious regarding the meaning of the language we are using, including the etiology of our metaphors. It seems dishonest and even
naive to me to use a metaphor then to claim it doesn't mean what it clearly means and doesn't imply what it clearly implies. Sure, say whatever you want however you want, but don't pretend
the obvious meanings aren't there. Speak with injust language all you want, but admit that is what you are doing. It seems to me that Pynchon is quite a conscious craftsman and that his use
of language and images is carefully crafted to wildly express meanings which he would stand behind.

Schwitterz

>
>
> On the boredom question I halfway agree that it IS somehow wrong to be
> bored with each other's heartfelt concerns.
>
>                                                                                 P.