GRGR(15) - Correct Reading (was: a thread too long)

[Josh Kortbein]

"David Morris" writes:
>Terrance again makes legitimate points, but my way of reading aligns w/ 
>jody's here.  Maybe I'm blessed w/ not having any literature education past 
>high shool (no Wiesenburger either).  This goes back to a common call I've 
>sent to the P-list: stick to the text.  The lit-crit boxes, though 
>interesting sometimes, seem more to get in the way.  I don't think Pynchon 

I don't think having or not having literature education is the point.

I remarked to a friend recently, who's taking a lit crit survey class,
that often the point of much critical analysis seems not to be "here's
a (new, different, whatever) way to read this text," but "here's yet
another way that this theory is validated by a text." If critical
theories are to be used it seems best that they're used in immanent
critiques, where the text remains the focus, rather than the theory.

[Not to David, but in general:] Is there much discussion of the _language_
of GR here? I haven't been on the list long but there seems to be a lot
of focus on higher-level structures in the text, social ramifications,
psychological analyses of characters, etc. In many ways I read GR as
some sort of giant mutant poem - a joy, since most poetry doesn't
do it for me. Admittedly, this level of focus makes reading more difficult
because the book is so labyrinthine. But IMO it's worthwhile.




sticking close (real close) to the text,

Josh

-- 
Making jazz swing in
Seventeen syllables AIN'T
No square poet's job