V.V. (13) "And they heard a Bondel one night ... " 277.17

[Dedalus]

<Smacking Millison's hand with Sr. Elvira's ruler>

Shame on you, Doug Millison!  How DARE you (or anyone) suggest that anything that
cums from the mouth or mind of jbore is anything other than the most
well-developed, well-supported, and cutting-edge of literary anal-ysis!  Doncha
know that any disagreement you may have with him/her/it will result in immediate
censure and accusation, typically along the lines of "you are a hypocrite" and the
"I-am-rubber-and-you-are-glue" school of rhetoric?

That's okay.  I'm posting this onlist, which makes me a card-carrying hypocrite,
and which also means the bore of j will undoubtedly have something to say in
response, as well s/h/it should.  I care not.  Jbore is a fuckwank to which I
aspire equality one day.

Dedalus (an anonymous lurker hypocrite)

P.S.  I also include gobs of previous posts in my postings, thereby using up
bandwidth.  Let the complaints soar!!!

jbor wrote:

> ----------
> >From: Doug Millison <DMillison at ftmg.net>
>
> >  at
> > least one P-lister and respected Pynchon critic (no, "jbor", not Hollander,
> > but another Pynchon Notes contributor)
>
> Perhaps you might refrain from the caustic in your references to me (you,
> see "Doug", that's what adults in the real world mean by "hypocrisy".)
>
> > has suggested the SL intro might be
> > something of a put-on,
>
> This has been mentioned before. If it disagrees with the barrow you're
> trying to sell, then it's a "put-on" (the _SL_ intro), or he's lying (the
> "Tinasky" disclaimer), or it's "modesty" (the Hirsch letter). Yeah right.
>
> > which may in fact be the case when it is read against
> > the sentiments Pynchon expressed in letters from the early '60s to his
> > literary agent in which he staked out some major literary ambitions for his
> > works in progress at that time
>
> Perhaps he was lying or putting-on or being modest in these letters. By the
> way, where is the "corroboration" for this? Also, it seems odd that you
> would denounce Siegel's 1977 biographical piece out of hand as
> "uncorroborated assertion", and then valorise Hollander's 1978 Cornell
> Alumni semi-biographical piece (which draws heavily on Siegel's article, by
> the way), when the former actually knew Pynchon over several years and the
> latter didn't. Let alone the different treatment you reserved for the one
> (legitimate correspondent) and the other (anonymous troll) on-list,
> _Lineland_ notwithstanding.
>
> > "jbor" has, on the many occasions in his repeated references to the Hirsch
> > letter, seemed to want to attribute some sort of insensitivity to the Herero
> > plight on the part of Pynchon
>
> I beg your pardon? What "insensitivity"? Quite the reverse, in fact.
>
> >  a rhetorical move that I think is quite
> > destructive to the spirit of social justice that pervades Pynchon's work,
>
> I beg your pardon? In fact it *confirms* the "spirit of social justice ... "
>
> > and which, I also believe, represents a serious misreading of Pynchon's
> > letter.
>
> Perhaps you might have the courtesy of elaborating on this "uncorrobated
> assertion"?
>
> > Coming from a P-list participant who has consistently sought to
> > exculpate the perpetrators of the genocides that Pynchon has so vividly
> > portrayed -- in Africa, in Europe during WWII --
>
> Weissmann is a fictional character, Doug. You're getting all muddled in your
> caustic froth and splutter there.
>
> > it's not surprising, but it
> > certainly stands on its head the political sympathies
>
> I can just see you now, banging Larry's and Curly's heads together and
> setting off on a new crusade ...
>
> >  that stand out quite
> >  clearly in Pynchon's work, and have been noted as such by countless critics.
>
> ... countless and uncounted ...
>
> > Always room for a contrarian, I suppose.
>
> Oh you ...
>
> best