GRGR(3) doggerel

[keith woodward]

kw:
>> I'm not sure what connection you're making between what Paul has said and
>> what you have said.
rj:
>I think you'll find that we each referred to the surreality of the text.
>I think Paul understood what I'd written, and made a connection. I'm
>still not sure you do, or have.

My response to Paul (which you included) was in regard to to a misquote.
You haven't said much about surreality.  You've suggested that it's in the
text, that I don't give it enough credit, and (if I recal correctly) you
connected it to post-structuralist theory.

>So, you're saying that my reading is unoriginal *and* that I'm only
>attacking you? Best to cover *all* the bases, so:

What reading?  You haven't offered a reading of the passage, only a way to
approach it.  Don't get so asterisky about it, I'm saying that it's a
regular approach to his texts, and, as I said, one that I think is correct.

>I'm wrong.[...]
>And I'm wrong again.[...]
>And rude.[...]
>Perhaps deliberately so.[...]

You know, I think we aren't really disagreeing on these points.  The
argument has become a pride game and, yeah, I think it's funny (Haw haw
funny).

>> I think it's the conclusion that can be drawn from the past that Doug's and
>> my discussion took, perhaps I'm wrong.
>
>And, I've misread a dialogue and butted in where you would have
>preferred I didn't, as well?

Don't be silly.  You can say whatever you want whenever you want.  But if
you claim that I've made a claim that I haven't, I'm allowed to correct you
(ideally without you getting all upset like this (but you're allowed to do
that).

>Well, string me up and pull the noose. I thought I was participating in
>a discussion, a free and fair exchange of ideas -- obviously not.

Right, "Do not attempt to adjust your t.v...."

>This style of hospitality frankly appals me. You've set the fairy cakes
>out on the table but you slap the hands of anyone who tries to touch
>them. Perhaps "*petty*" was the wrong word after all: supercilious seems
>a much better fit. I'll know to trust to first instincts next time.

Hospitality?  This is a free forum, not Captain Keith's Livingroom of Love.
Your last post made claims about how I believe the text and Pynchon
function.  They were flatly mistaken and I think you were using out
discussion as an opportunity to get up on your soapbox about the way you
think the world works and the way to read a text.  You were kind enough to
use me as a scapegoat and I called you on it.  Name-calling's always seemed
to me a little petty and supercilious.

>[ps I probably wouldn't have bothered with this except for that
>disingenuous typo post which came after: 'Hah, haw, I'm human too. Look,
>I err. Look at my typos, haw, haw. *And* I'm big enough of a man to
>admit it. Haw, haw.']

Pure venom.  wow.  Perhaps it's time that this go offlist?

Keith W