Gottfried & Blicero, Nietzsche & Pynchon

[Dave Monroe]

... seem to recall "sic-ing" someone "else," actually.  So can't wait =
MichaelB = well, I just can't wait to find out, is all ... "dispersion,"
indeed ... actually, given the crab-claws (and, speaking of which,
dispersion, crab-claws, note V677/B789, "Broderick and Nalline's
shadow-child, their unconfessed, their moster son, who was born with
hydraulic clamps for hands that know only how to reach and grab") with
which I type, I'm perfectly forgiving of typos.  However, I take
responsibility only for my own, and, if I'm gonna cite someone, I'm gonna
try to cite 'em as I see 'em, is all, so, no offense intended, jus' bein'
responsible about things ...

"Impossibility" of "any" knowledge of authorial intention?  Well, when it
comes to Pynchon ... but I do believe I questioned "your" (under yr
MichaelB guise), or, for that matter, anybody posting here's possible
knowledge of Pynchon's "intentions."  That he (for starters) had
"intentions" in writing Gravity's Rainbow (for starters), I have no
doubt.  That we can discern, or, at any rate, approximate them, I am
rather more skeptical of.  That anyone here has actually managed to do as
much, well ....  That Pynchon'll ever let any of us in on whatever his
"intentions" were, well, who knows, but, at that point, then we can start
arguing with him as well.  In the meantime, we do have th' texts, which
at least seem, esp. by virtue of their idiosyncracy, their complexity, to
indeed have been written with some care (and you're reading the "joy" in
there), and we have some hint of their contexts, so ...

Whether or not

can't wait wrote:

> Good God, I've been sic-ed by herr professor Monroe.  Always you know
> a spanking is ensuing when you get sic-ed.  As a preface to the
> sic(en)-ing, he said:
>
> 'Not much of anything "careless" about "Pynchon the writer," which is
> why one doubts that he'd be "tossing about" such, er, "events," much
> less "joyfully" ...'
>
> I wonder how Dave knows this, in light of the impossibility of any
> knowledge of what he recently termed 'authorial intention'.  How is
> it that what you state above....is the case?