the list: discussion or riff?

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Seb Thirlway wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terrance F. Flaherty <Lycidas at worldnet.att.net>
> 
> >OK, same books different reading. Lets start from this and
> >see if we can have a serious discussion and at the same time
> >not fly too far away from the common discussion--grgr. I am
> >convinced that the attempt to establish one "true" reading
> >of GR or we might say one "true" philosophy by refuting all
> >others is a futile exercise.
> 
> Hear hear.  I hope I, and everyone else on this list, never reach
> a "true" philosophy of GR.

Well whatever we reach as individuals and as a group, if we
accept that we cannot reach it by refuting the reachings of
all other reachers we will have better discussions. 

> What has struck me is how, since I've started reading all your
> posts, I'm finding more in GR I never found before.  If I ever
> have this book sussed I won't read it again, which would be a sad
> day.
> 
> > This is partly due to the fact
> >that each person's refutation of all other
> >readings/philosophies depends on interpreting others in the
> >terms of their own reading/philosophy, and this exposes one
> >to the danger of the fallacy known to philosophers as
> >IGNORATIO ELENCHI, or ignorance of what refutation is. O
> >Rocks Terrance, tell us in plain words. OK, refutation of
> >what has not been asserted. Lots of times I post something
> >to this list and as others begin to reply my assertions are
> >lost. I cannot defend what I have not asserted. Often, the
> >discussion evolves and attempts to repair, correct, clarify,
> >and so on, only complicate matters
> 
> True, and difficult.  One the one hand it would be good to e.g.
> read something from Terrance, and then read everyone discussing
> it in the terms of the original assertion (which involves, in
> this example, giving Terrance a privileged status in the
> discussion - to say "that's not what I meant" where necessary).
> Can't say I could join in very well but it would be interesting
> to read.

I don't think it's a privilege. To write something and see
it taken to mean something else; to try to help and be
accused of being pushy or privileged; to try to be
considerate and be called an elitist; to try to write what
will be interesting to some and not offend others; to try
not to use certain terms; to try not to privilege anything;
to try to establish a framework for meaningful discussion,
only to end feeling like an fool, this is difficult
indeed.   

> On the other hand, the freewheeling that happens, as Terrance
> describes it, has a positive side: just as GR is a book with a
> million fertile points, any more disciplined discussion,
> focussing on a single point that has been made, spawns other
> discussions, and in turn these spawn others.  I enjoy reading and
> getting involved in this kind of freeform stuff - but not when it
> gets to the point of flaming, or accusations of trolling.


Free? What's free? You will discover that freewheeling is
not so free here. 
> 
> . These disagreements,
> >based on miscommunication, then often become  part of the
> >general discussion and we get fixed in what I think is
> >frustrating to many here, in what we might call polarities
> >of confused disagreement.
> 
> Yep.  Email is notoriously (for me, don't ask) fertile ground for
> selective quoting.  Which can start to look like personal attack
> "you say in sentence 6 that... this is utterly indefensible".
> Where I can imagine Terrance could start getting frustrated,
> looking for a chance to say that this is NOT what he meant.
> On the other hand GR doesn't help: for me the most wonderful
> thing about it is the way TRP continually makes the reader
> nervous: any single sentence COULD suddenly become the slender
> but effective basis for a manic, extended, exhilarating Pynchon
> riff.  You read along, and suddenly BLAM there you are, he's
> pulled his trick on you again.  Wonderful.
> I think I've tended to use this technique: something Terrance, or
> s~z, or anyone writes suddenly makes a whole lot of connections
> within GR for me, and I post a riff.  Which no-one has taken
> exception to yet.  

GR does help. It's the book that really helps, cause it's
the one we have in common, but I guess you mean it doesn't
help in that it is a difficult book. However, the BLAM of GR
is the BLAM of GR. The BLAMS on P-L are quite different. 

Perhaps this is what is happening elsewhere -
> one sentence leads on to a position where it looks as if the
> poster has e.g. a view that child abuse is OK (or to put it more
> offensively - that child abuse with the sons/daughters of
> everyone on the list who has them would be OK - and then, well,
> that is something I would be emotional about).

Quite a different BLAM!

> 
> >No one, I think, is to blame for
> >this and I think this is a solvable problem. However, there
> >are other problems. Even if we all agreed that any attempt
> >to refute all other readings/philosophies different from
> >one's own is futile, we still have communications problems.
> >These communications problems often involve communication
> >across different theoretical frameworks. For example, when
> >one person applies a particular approach to GR. We also have
> >the problem of how achievements made possible by one
> >framework can be incorporated into another. For example, I
> >like to apply Brian McHale's work to a Menippean reading of
> >GR. Others on the list may apply the achievements of McHale
> >or Weisenburger or Freud or Frye or Barth, or Bahktin or
> >Bloom and so on,. either to their own reading or to another
> >theoretical framework. This is part of the reason why
> >"lit-crtit" discussions are often fruitless here. What often
> >happens is that we deal with the conclusions of certain
> >approaches, for example, Frye's Anatomy, comparing them with
> >other conclusions without accounting for the different
> >principles on which these approaches depend.
> >
> Since I'm not familiar with the literature on GR I can't really
> join in.  Anyone tells me they're applying an "X-ian" reading to
> GR and I'll concede the point.  

It's not simply "lit-crit" or "X-ian" readings. Since
Pynchon sends us to other books all the time, these books
are become part of the discussion.

Can we keep the list enjoyable
> for both the academically sophisticated and those who are simply
> high on GR and fascinated by it?  

The best rule, because it is the only one we can enforce
here, is no rule. 

Something I'd like to see would
> be references of some sort: when someone makes an intriguing
> point, based on McX's article YZA, could there be a brief mention
> of where this is available - online ideally, though not always
> possible?  

Some don't like this and sometimes it's been part of the
discussion for years, so it's hardly practical to do this
all the time. Best thing to do is ask. 


If there is a consensus out there that everyone has
> read secondary literature X and Y and Z, and some people want to
> have a discussion on the basis of this common ground, well how
> about tolerance for side-threads for those who don't share this
> ground?  Some sort of convention in subject headers?

Good suggestion. 

> 
> As Terrance points out, there seems to be a lot of covert
> fire-power being used "you are totally wrong, based on my
> assumptions/reading/approach which I am not going to reveal
> explicitly".
> 
> hoping to carry on enjoying this find.

I think you will find that it's a good discussion and that
the folks here are very interesting, very smart, read a lot,
know their Pynchon, love their Pynchon and enjoy riffing,
lit-critting, joaking, smoking, and all the other wonderful
things this list is that no one, except maybe, god knows. 

 WELCOME!


> 
> merry Christmas to everyone
> 
> seb


Peace on earth and good will towards women and men too

Terrance