GRGR(3) doggerel

[keith woodward]

>> 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 think that this is a flaw in the author's (Pynchon's) part.  I
think it's there and I enjoy it.  I wasn't trying to do what Pointsman
does.  I'm not in search of the holy text.  You have a mistaken impression.
('s what I was trying to say).

>I don't see how you can construe this as an insult, nor soapboxing, nor
>scapegoating.

I don't either.  This is:

"We seek certitude and resolution through all our structures of society
and culture: we *want* history/morality/life to have meaning, logic,
cause and effect, right and wrong. We *want* the baby to be smiling --
and maybe it is but maybe it isn't as well and this state of unknowing
is the state Pynchon depicts and the one that we have to live our lives
in."

>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.

No, but all along I've been arguing that we're in agreement.  You did say
new stuff, but my claims didn't disagree with it.

>> 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."

I agree that it's indeterminate.  Who knows what Pynchon wanted.  It seems
that he apparently was looking for indeterminacy.  If he was looking for
clarity and singularity, he's got a whole novel of problems.  But I think
it's indeterminate, whatever he meant.

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

No sneer intended.  I came around to post-structuralism some time ago and I
enjoy it quite a bit (but before that Doug and I would have gotten on
smashingly).  This comment makes me suspect, though, that *you're* taking
*my* posts far too personally and are letting them offend you where they're
not intended to.  (Besides, you're missing all of the good digs.)

Simply, my point is that I wasn't claiming exclusivity in interpretation
when I responded to Doug.  I'm sorry if you got *that* impression.
Nonetheless I hope you don't grab your coat and hat, as I'll be overturned
by my virtuous double in a matter of days.

Keith W