M&D - Tyburn Tree 'resurrections'
Mark Wright AIA
mwaia at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 22 07:53:51 CDT 1999
Howdy all (and not just RJ),
I beg the pardon, please, of all of you for my intemperate use of
CAPITALS in the post below, when the *asterisk* the polite amplifier.
I didn't mean to shout. I wish it were possible to use italics
instead.
RJ, I appologise for getting you riled. I didn't mean to condescend;
I'm not on a lofty enough perch to descend from. My remarks, also,
where not *aimed* at you, but were intended as a comment on a general
line of discussion -- so *one and all* should have taken offense.
But to continue in the spirit of the nasty retort, on a line by line
basis, that these threads often degenerate into, I offer the following:
--- rj <rjackson at mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> Mark Wright wrote:
> > My memory of the earlier exchanges which prompted me to interject
> (more
> > fool me)
>
> I'm sorry, is there a problem? You are under no obligation.
Ouch!
>
> > My memory of the earlier exchanges which prompted me to interject
> (more
> > fool me) is hazy now, forgive me but I recall that you were making
> a
> > comparison between the 'belief system' you seek or seem to find
> > expressed in P's fiction and "orthodox Christianity".
>
> Well then, you were quite wrong, weren't you. This is as close as I
> came
> to what you accused me of, (i.e. that I "seek or seem to find" a
> particular "'belief system'" expressed in Pynchon's fiction), which
> you'll find is not only not close, but the absolute antithesis of
> what
> you've invented:
>
> "I agree that there are many instances of
> otherworldly experience represented in Pynchon's fiction, however, as
> they are drawn from a vast range of different and quite distinct
> belief
> systems which (mostly) claim exclusive purchase on such afterworldly
> experience, then I'm quite confident in saying that he is merely
> representing the possibility of such resurrections "at all times"."
I stand before the group corrected, and abashed. Again, memory is a
hazy thing; I don't know which post you pulled that paragraph from. It
sounds as though it came from the right thread of discussion though.
>
> > To try and figure out what HE BELIEVES based on the books is (IMO)
> a
> > waste of your time. It doesn't matter; you can't know; and he is
> > almost certainly (IMO) laughing through his hat. Relax.
>
> This was *exactly* my point as well. But I can do without the
> condescension.
It is nice that we agree. Are we not brothers? I often agree with
you. Am I condescending now? It is hard for me to tell anymore, I'm
such a supercilious prick.
>
> > His
> > CHARACTERS might hold opinions, or believe in this or that. His
> > NARRATOR(S), slippery dudes and dudettes that they are, might seem
> to
> > believe this or that. The patterns and relationships set up in the
> > work belong to the work itself, and cannot be assigned to the
> author.
> > The authors attitudes about things might be suggestive, but nothing
> > more.
>
> Indubitably. (I believe "suggested" rather than "suggestive", is what
> you meant to write.)
What I *meant* to write was: "The author's attitudes (generally
manifest in the work) might be suggestive (of his underlying beliefs),
but nothing more." Suggestive was the right word. My sentence was at
once sloppy and brief.
>
> > > So, they weren't Bible *stories* after all?
> >
> > Not in the same way that "Puss'n'Boots" or "How the Elephant Got
> His
> > Trunk" or "Love Story" or "Gravity's Rainbow" are.
>
> That's how they were *read* to most of us as children, though, wasn't
> it?
My mother read me "Bible Stories" and told me they were historical
fact, and the Word of God. She read me "Puss n' Boots" and told me it
was "just a story". I hate to generalize, but I venture that *most of
us* got the same message. Big difference.
>
> Your characterisation of Pynchon's attitude as that of some smirking
> book merchant "laughing through his hat" at the beliefs and faiths of
> his readers actually ascribes a "belief system" to the man (by
> inference
> at least), about the potentialities of fiction if nothing else.
I made no such characterization. I said that he is a man who makes and
sells things for a living: books. I hold such productive people in the
highest possible esteem, and count Michelangelo, Gislebertus, Phidias,
Imhotep, Shakespeare, Heisenberg and Oppenheimer as members of the set.
I meant that Pynchon probably "laughs through his hat" at critics --
never at the beliefs of his readers.
Respectfully,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list