The context of Pynchon's MDMA saying

[Clare Kennedy]

>From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at hotmail.com>
>To: kennedy_clare at hotmail.com, lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de, 
>pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: The context of Pynchon's MDMA saying
>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:01:42 CST
>
>
>>From: "Clare Kennedy"
>>
>>>From: lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de (Lorentzen / Nicklaus)
>>>
>>>Yesterday Amazon brought me Bruce Eisner's XTC book (- ecstasy: The MDMA
>>>Story.
>[snip]
>>
>>Don't take the brown acid dudes, Pynchon says not to.
>>
>>Barely there Clare
>>
>
>But Momma, that's where the fun is!
>
>But Clare,
>
>Don't be so sure you see idolatry.  The subject here is two-fold:
>1.  What does GR say?
>1a.  Is GR's epistemology equal to TRP's?
>1b.  Who cares?
>2.  What does experience say?
>
>We are examining GR.  Whether it's equations are "TRUE" is another matter.
>Pynchon's texts are riddles, puzzles.  He invites, almost challenges us to
>crack his nut.  Should we say, "Tom, you tease!  I won't chase you.  You 
>are
>only provocative.  You can't deliver the Big Pay-off!"?  If we say this, we
>cut short an experience.  His book may be wild ravings, random automatic
>writings.  The themes may be only the result of the few neural paths
>remaining in his acid-rattled mind.
>
>I DO think Pynchon's partial to window pane.
>
>David Morris
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


But Clare,

Don't be so sure you see idolatry.  The subject here is two-fold:
1.  What does GR say?
1a.  Is GR's epistemology equal to TRP's?
1b.  Who cares?
2. What does experience say?


I'm not sure what I'm seeing here. I might be a mad women in the attic, but 
I'm not the one suggesting that Tom is partial to window pane. What 
experiences are you talking about?

We are examining GR.  Whether it's equations are "TRUE" is another matter.
Pynchon's texts are riddles, puzzles.  He invites, almost challenges us to
crack his nut.

The wild ravings, random automatic writings?  The themes may be only the 
result of the few neural paths
remaining in his acid-rattled mind? Sounds like you think his nut is already 
cracked.

Should we say, "Tom, you tease!  I won't chase you.  You are
only provocative.  You can't deliver the Big Pay-off!"?  If we say this, we
cut short an experience.  His book may be wild ravings, random automatic
writings.  The themes may be only the result of the few neural paths
remaining in his acid-rattled mind.

I DO think Pynchon's partial to window pane.

David Morris
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you would allow 
that Pynchon is partial to window pane, his mind rattled by acid, but on the 
other hand you suggest that we cut the experience short if we expect the big 
pay-off from Tom-the author of Gravity's Rainbow. You seem to be suggesting 
that when we concentrate on extrinsic evidence to determine the author's 
intent or meaning, we neglect the experience of reading the novel as 
primarily a work of art, but you provide fortune cookie blurbs to support 
fantastic statements. I'm not arguing that either approach is more valid, 
but that your argument is not valid.  When you speculate (you are only 
speculating, right?) about the author's proclivities and partialities, you 
should preface your remarks with a little more than "I DO think" and "may be 
only," or don't you acknowledge, appreciate, admit that once liberated from 
the "objective correlative" we are still obliged to proceed cautiously? 
Pynchon's  puzzles and riddles, solvable or not, sometimes ask that we 
search high and low, deep and wide, and sometimes they call for silence. We 
may knot in and we may knot out, we may wonder from maze to maze, but I 
don't think the clownish blurbs that Tom gushes out like shits and grins are 
the window pane views into Gravity's Rainbow.

Best,

Clare




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com