Re. thoughts

[David Morris]

"Max" decloaks:

> [snip]                 Of course our TRP isn't a mystery writer, 
> though the points of similarity in his method and mystery 
> writers' method have been discussed in the critical 
> literature.  He raises questions.  He wants he reader to 
> "work" at the text, to come up with tentative answers to the 
> questions. He sets out clues for us to follow.  Some times 
> the clues are "reader traps," but other times they are not.  
> How do we know which is which?  What method have we for 
> establishing primacy?
> 
>                 Indeed, does he have a "message" or are all 
> of his dialectics always so undermining of his apparent 
> assertions that all of his oeuvre amounts to a joke on the 
> reader?  This view has its followers.

Well, he HAS referred to Koans in his texts.  It may just be that he likes
to explore questions/dialectics, not necessarily make "assertions," or at
least none which "kill" the counter questions.  I can see how one might feel
let down when there is no definitive "answer," but rather than being a joke
on the reader I'd say it elevates the reader by inviting participation.

>  [snip]TRP is often slipping back and forth 
> between genres.  But it is still important that we readers 
> know which genres they are.  [snip]

How so?  Why must we pigeon-hole ANY of the text.  I agree that he
slip-slides almost past novels and into even multiple film genres, but I
don't see recognition of these as being central (beyond an insider's laugh
or two) to deciphering the text.

>                 Some brief thoughts about Mrs. Quoad and the crazy
> candies drill.  Does it advance the plot?  Does it develop character?

Yes, Slothrop's, as the schlemiel-hero.

> Is it analogous to any of the main themes of the novel at large??
> What happens in these six and a half  pages?  Well, not much.

Only much later when we, along w/ Pointy, discover that our "experience"
with Slothrop might never really have occurred.  Also it contributes to
Pointy's guilt when the White Visitation soon after gets bombed.
 
> [snip]           On the level of the subtext, ay there's the 
> rub, there are lots of other things happening.
[snip of "subtext" analysis] 
> TRP is allerting us there is more going on in the passage 
> than the merely what happens.  There is also this medley in 
> the subtext which makes it more than merely The Disgusting 
> English Candy Drill.
>
>                 At the subtextual level TRP is alerting us to 
> The Holocaust, to the murder of Jews by Germans, to poison 
> gases, and to true and false allies.

Granting the above, how does TRP's "alerting us to the Holocaust" (as if we
were ignorant of it) really further the text any more than the most dully
obvious way: It happened.  For me, the meat of this section is the hilarious
comedy, as well as the plot points above.

> Max's axiom #1; SOMETIMES THE SUBTEXT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TEXT.
> #2; SOMETIMES THE SUBTEXT IS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE AS THE TEXT.
> #3; SOMETIMES THE TEXT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SUBTEXT.  
> Since the main energy of the novel shifts back and forth, 
> with the subtext illuminating the text, and vice versa, we 
> have to judge each instance on a case by case basis.  There 
> is no rule.  We have to follow the ball to discern where the 
> main energy is.
> 
>                 This is a friendly note to the list.  It doesn't take
> on the weight of a paper to be published.  I will field 
> friendly debate and questions.  I will not answer hostile 
> attacks or character assassination.
>                  Charles Hollander      

Welcome to the brave de-cloaked world!
David Morris