GRGR(3) doggerel

[rj]

> My response to Paul (which you included) was in regard to to a misquote.

Paul wrote re. Pynchon's "projection of a talking dog". You're claiming
that he wrote re. Pynchon's 'projection of the dog'. There's quite a
difference. I think you sold him short. 

> 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 sure about that? This is what I wrote. Have another look.

> I get the impression
> that you find the indeterminacy of narrative attribution to be a flaw on
> the author's behalf, a regrettable lack at the very least, and that in
> trying to fit the Poinstman-as-narrator reading onto the text you were
> in fact doing what Pointsman is trying to do: experimenting and playing
> out your expectations and yearning for empirical (and historical and
> moral) certainty, for a conclusive and individuated narrative, for a one
> and only Holy Text.

I don't see how you can construe this as an insult, nor soapboxing, nor
scapegoating. It was "my impression", the feeling I was getting. So, the
impression was wrong, no bid deal. But you also imply that I've just
been repeating your position all along, that my comments have been
redundant. Except that you seem to be saying that my reading of the
narrative in _GR_ is the same as yours on the one hand, but that mine is
wrong on the other. Makes reasonable discourse problematical, to say the
least

> What reading?  You haven't offered a reading of the passage, only a way to
> approach it.

Actually, I've wasted quite a bit of energy trying to clarify something
for you which you've been rather obstinate and evasive about
acknowledging. This is how you initially responded to my post:

> I'm not sure if I understand your objection.  The indeterminacy of the text
> is what I have been arguing for.  I don't see how mention/use of a framed
> narrative within the text (not my mention of it) would lock any text into a
> naturalist or a modernist mode, nor how it strictly falls under their
> paradigms.

This request for clarification/supercilious dismissal of my
"*objection*" was what I was elaborating on. I hadn't expressed an
objection. I was joining the discussion and offering what I thought was
a different angle. My point was and is this one: "Pynchon *meant* his
text to be
indeterminate, this pluralism is inscribed in the process of the
narrative."
Do you agree or disagree? Nah, on second thoughts, forget it. I don't
care.

> Hospitality? 

> May 31/Section 3     (pp.42-60): Keith Woodward

> Name-calling's always seemed
> to me a little petty and supercilious.

Love that sneer when you write "post-structuralist" too. 

> Pure venom.  wow.

Nah. Simple deconstruction.

> Perhaps it's time that this go offlist?

No thanks. I'll just cut my losses and bail.