GRGR Slothrop & Sloth

[Doug Millison]

me:
>> No irony is apparent in these sentences, instead they present a
>> straightforward series of unqualified assertions. TRP doesn't say that
>> "some people believe but I don't" (he doesn't say that directly nor does he
>> imply it through his diction) that there was a "long-ago age of faith and
>> miracle, when daily life really was the Holy Ghost visibly at work".  It
>> seems clear from this assertion that he believes that such was the case in
>> an earlier historical period.

At 9:25 AM +1100 6/20/99, rj wrote:
>Sure, it's an historical interpretation of what the prevailing
>belief system was in the Middle Ages. Obviously. No-one is denying that.
>In fact, I think you'll find wholehearted agreement on this score.

Glad to hear it. You seem to agree that in this article TRP affirms this
historical interpretation. Earlier you seemed to be saying that we can't
trust him, in his NY Times essays, to tell us the truth about what he
believes.

rj:
>"But, are we then to take this as a retraction of your original firm
>assertion that >the two paragraphs you cited "disclose something of what
>TRP thinks about God >and religion and time and technology"?

No, I'm not retracting anything.  In making such an affirmation, TRP does
reveal something about what he thinks about God and religion and time and
technology -- it seems clear that he thinks that there was a "long-ago age
of faith and miracle, when daily life really was the Holy Ghost visibly at
work" and that over time, with the rise of technology, that age has been
replaced by another.  TRP has in fact expressed an opinion regarding God
and religion and time and technology, just as I said. It's rather simple
and self-evident.

me:
>> The idea that he removes all traces
>> of himself from his writings, that he reveals nothing about himself in his
>> writing, that you can't learn anything about what concerns him or what he
>> believes from examining his writing, remains absurd.
>
rj:
>Is this what a straw man is?

No, it's the point I was making in my post, a simple, common-sense point,
here restated:  by reading carefully what TRP has written, fiction or
non-fiction, we can come to some conclusions about what is important to TRP
and from there make some educated guesses about what he believes about
certain things. You and some other readers don't seem to find this an
interesting line of inquiry, and I respect that opinion. I do find it
interesting, however.

I'll take it a step further, too, in partial answer to another question,
whether or not there is a "correct" way to interpret GR.  I don't believe
there is a single, "correct" interpretation; one of the reasons I enjoy
this and other TRP fictions is that he gives us so much to think about and
chew on, you can tell a lot of stories about what it might mean. I do think
you can follow TRP's allusions and references and come up with readings
that aren't purely subjective (following TRP's pointers to specific things
outside the text, and following clues within TRP's rext about what to do
with what we find out there) but which offer startling overlays to the text
at hand. Max just identified one such powerful story that lies nearly
buried in the trip down the toilet -- the assassination of JFK. I'm
interested in following that thread, and others like it, through GR.

Pre-empting potential flames, I admit that some folks consider this
approach "rubbish". But that's OK, you're entitled to that opinion.

d o u g  m i l l i s o n  http://www.online-journalist.com