GRGR(15) - Correct Reading (was: a thread too long)
Terrance F. Flaherty
Lycidas at worldnet.att.net
Tue Dec 14 19:52:24 CST 1999
I should really like to discuss Gnostic Pynchon and Rilke
and some feminist criticism I've read, but I don't want to
impose these on anyone. I like these lit-crit essays. I toss
them in a little here and there, I understand David's
interest, I share it most of the time, but not all the
time. It seems futile to try to make rules.
Post away.
PS I wanted to discuss sex in GR. Not if this or that sex
act is good or evil, but how do these sex scenes function in
the narrative? Why is Blicero's view of Pain so very
different from Roger's and how are their sexual acts related
to these differences? How is Zoyd's interest in young girls
different from Pointsman's or Brock Vonds? How is does sex
with a black slave in M&D differ from sex with a black
Herero in V.?
Discussions are tough here, sticking to the text, the common
texts of Pynchon or to grgr may help and it may not.
Post away, anything is fine with me
Josh Kortbein wrote:
>
> "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
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list