Life After Virgins (was Re: Not Pynchon but Chaucer

[jbor]

Pynchon cops a mention in this article by Peter Craven about the new Sofia
Coppola film, and Jeffrey Eugenides 1993 novel, *The Virgin Suicides* on
which it is based, at

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0009/02/spectrum/spectrum2.html

Also an interesting article on pop culture and the canon (specifically, the
correlation between Shakespeare's *As You Like It* and the *Friends*
sitcom), and the mooted decline of the literary academy, by English Prof.
Richard Keller Simon from California Polytech., whose book *Trash Culture:
Popular Culture and the Great Tradition* (Uni of Calif. Press), sounds
interesting

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0009/02/spectrum/spectrum4.html

best


----------
>From: Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net>
>
> Good post, Terrance but  can anyone explain what this quote is about?  Not
> Pynchon or Vineland, is it? Seems strangely remote not only from P and
> Vineland but from Virginity itself. Traditionally a designation of Virgin
> is of value to a woman (mortal or divine) if she wants her offspring to be
> considered Divine. The father needs to have been a god in otherwords. This
> is certainly the point for the Virgin Mary. A woman aspiring less high
> would want to lose whatever virginity she was born with as quickly and
> painlessly as possible. All the movies tell us this. The author of this
> quote should have immersed herself more in Marx--Groucho that is--who
> wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have him as a member. This
> is a better explaination for seduction and rejection than absence
> as a presence quickly followed by presense as an absense.  And nothing to
> do with Virginity IMHO.
>
>
>