Chasing ... Cutting

[Dave Monroe]

Without taking quite as strong a line on authorial intention (I'd certainly take
any forthcoming statements into consideration, if not necessarily at face value,
and I've certainly taken into consideration the nonfiction and other extant
statements) or the inverse role of the reader (one would have to take into
consideration the specified reader, and I obviously hold Doug in rather more
esteem that M. MalignD here), and without condoning the strong (and, below,
uncited) language, I've obviously posted similar sentiments here before, so ...

MalignD at aol.com wrote:

>  I find it not believable, whatever his original intentions, that Pynchon
> might have missed the Crystal Palace/Kristallnacht correspondence.  And other
> correspondences

> And even if Pynchon did miss the correspondence, no matter.  Separate from
> what Pynchon himself intended, if the opening passage evokes the Holocaust for
> even one reader [...] then it evokes the Holocaust.  It is a question of
> poetics; the words, written, are free to the interpreting reader.

> Pynchon's intentions are irrelevant to the reader.  Pynchon's intentions don't
> lie between the covers of his novels.  They need not and they do not trouble
> or persuade me and they need not any other reader.