apology/explanation part 1

[julian nasti]

to all p-listers,

i fulsomely apologise for my unbridled stream of invectives/profanities 
unleashed in my last post. as it turns out, Jethro Tull (the historical 
figure) was protechnological, not antitechnological. Even if he was the 
latter, it would have been a pretty damn tenuous link, and if detectable as 
a joke at all, not very funny.

i'm going to explain, in several instalments, what i meant to say in my 
first post. my ideas are going to form the basis of a mini-thesis i'm doing. 
also i'm going to keep my phraseology as simple as possible.

i think (remember that i'm only 16, and i'm not acquaninted with the breadth 
and depth of discourse that has been going on about _GR_ since 1973) that 
one of the first questions we have to ask about the novel is - what is 
pynchon (thematically) trying to illuminate by making the novel so damn 
intricate?

first i would like to return to joseph furphy's "such is life". admittedly, 
i've never read the thing. it was a controversial choice as exam text for my 
10th grade english class (i independently studied the much less textually 
repulsive "the outsider" by camus). but i do remember my teacher (dr 
geoffrey windon) making the following point about the book. when it was 
written, the notion of democracy was still a nascent one within the 
Antipodean subconscious. if we examine the novel, we see that a multitude of 
different voices, narratorial points of view, local dialects/inflections are 
represented. the text is DEMOCRATIC. i mentioned faulkner's "the sound and 
the fury" peripherally as an example of a book that uses different 
narratorial points of view (i haven't read that either, i'm reading V. and 
heart of darkness at the moment).

part 2 is coming forthwith.

i love you all

julian
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com