SPHERE to Eternity

[rj]

tf
> Yes, I see the difference, but do these references tell us
> anything about Pynchon's use of names? His use of half names
> or how about that Clayton? and that Wendell? 

Wendell and Clayton are relatively common first names. As is Geli. They
are not overt referents to historical personages in that the characters
in the novel to which the names are attached bear no resemblance
whatsoever -- in situation, achievement or attitude -- to the historical
personages cited.

> This is a little harsh rj. The magic eye, trained eye is
> playful, creative, makes the essay very interesting and I
> like the analogy. Elitist, privileged, elect/preterite, we
> shouldn't get far if we stick our noses in this jar rabbit,
> said pooh, this is kid of a  meta issue that will only
> divert out attention away from the essay. 

I guess it is harsh and I do see the playful, pop culture aspect of the
"magic eye" analogy, as with the opening comparison of Mr P to Wile E.
Coyote. (Btw I'd say that *this* is somewhat harsh. I'd be more inclined
to characterise Mr P as Wile E's nemesis myself. Meep meep.)

Nevertheless, the Elect/preterite duality is trademark Pynchon, and Mr
Hollander has allowed his interpretive approach to fall directly into
this frame -- the Elect reader who has the "trained, or magic, eye" as
opposed to the preterite reader who does not. The category of Elect in
this instance is not vouchsafed by God, nor by the author, nor by the
text I submit, but by the critic. Mr Hollander makes reference to the
categories himself as part of his argument, in the penultimate paragraph
of the essay in particular, so I believe it is quite legitimate to
address this issue.

best