pynchon's list

[Dave Monroe]

Okay, now the quandary is, reply and risk apearing to
want to claim the last word, or not reply and risk
appearing to accede to someone else's claims about my
words, to allow someone else the last word on my
words.  This, of course, is the quandary which
prolongs all the nastiness here, but ...

--- lorentzen-nicklaus
<lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> why does your posting sound, as if you would prefer
> to stay with p-list's balcanized snafu pattern?

I have no idea, as I can't seem to hear it that way. 
The quandary of deconstruction, however, is not being
able to claim the final word over "your" "own" words. 
Of course, no one else can, either ...

> i know that this narrow resentfulness is dominating 

> in most long-time lists, but i don't think that
> this is unavoidable.

I don't either, which is why I bother to say a little
something about it once in a while ...
 
> > On the  one hand ...
> >
> > --- lorentzen-nicklaus
> > <lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > i definitely believe that people like malignd or
> > > david morris can do better things for this list
> than
> > > dissing doug or his mother. 
> 
> > Okay, thanks, at least for myself, perhaps even
> for Doug, and definitely for those who, reluctant to
> be  caught up in onlist hostilities, simply do not
> speak up about these recurrent shenanigans (and I
> believe  this is indeed a "silent majority" here).
> We ALL have better, more productive things to do.  
> 
> certainly. well, dave, actually  y o u  were not
> adressed here. 

Yes, I know I wasn't.  I do not like seeing anyone
ganged up on, however, here or elsewhere, esp. for no
particular reason other than to gang up on him/her. 
Speaking out against injustice, whatever.  Or at least
against cheap shots ...

> i simply don't see you in a similar role like doug.
> (oh, now i remember, those bs charges against rob
> being this or that were also pushed by you...

What, his being an occasional pain in the ass one way
or another?  Well okay, I guess it's not evil or
anything, but ... but there are those here who would
not disagree, although for the most part they decline
to do so onlist, being wiser, more experienced and,
esp., more patient (or, at any rate, more careful
about wasting their precious time) than myself.  That
a cheap shot?  Maybe, but that's pretty much what I've
had to say on the subject, so ... 

> but it seems - may it be like that! - we're,
finally, 
> beyond this, are we?).

Well, that remains to be seen.  I can only speak for
myself, and I would certainly like to be ...

> but you claim to speak for the "silent majority",
> those "reluctant to be caught up in onlist 
> hostilities". 

I hear from them, is all ...

> you've made this claim here more than once, so i
> guess there are really people writing you offlist
> that my flamings prevent them from posting their
> stuff. (but perhaps you're talking "out of the
> window" here and are adressing somebody else?).

Not naming names on either end, but don't take it
personally.  After a couple of days of watching
hostilities escalate again, I decided to say something
just after what seemed like the most reasonable moment
since they started, when you and Thomas--two posters I
have particular respect for here, as you both
know--after seeming to have reached a point at which
the List might become relatively peaceable again, 
seemingly chose to take a couple of shots at Doug
anyway ...  

But people have been, are being discouraged from
posting, and, again, I do hear from them occasionally.
 I would not make this claim were it not true,
although, as I believe people contact me because I'll
maintian their anonymity, I'm in the uncomfortable
position of not being able to prove it.  So I
appreciate your leap into faith here ...   

> i do not remember having flamed newbies or people 
> who rarely post or modest persons or shy ones. did
> i do this? when was this?  and what was it about?
> didn't i, in contrary, encourage lots of people     

> with interested, constructive replies?  

Again, nothing personal.  I intervened at what I
believed would be the most hassle-free point to do so,
and only out of disappointment that I'd want to say
anything at all ...

> what i actually remember is having, at times, dissed
> or flamed established key-players.  sometimes this
> happened in context of those bs charges already
> mentioned and was, thus, justified; sometimes it
was, 
> on both sides, more fun than anything else; 

Fun for whom is the question here.  Not for Doug, not
for me, not for others ...

> sometimes i had an asshole-day; and sometimes, sigh,
> the repudiated son's hatred for any kind of natural
> authority gets into my ways ... i feel sad that
> keith is not dwelling on these shores anymore, and
> i'm quite glad mr. flaherty still talks to me. so,
> ashes on my head, grey grey ashes ...  
       
I, of course, did not much get to know Keith, but I do
miss having someone here everybody seemed to respect
who could serve as an arbiter, and I always
appreciated my realtively few dealings with him.  I'm
not so sure Mr. Flaherty isn't still talking to all of
us, but ...

> hey, i'm trying to be kinda honest. what do you
> expect? all ambivalence gone over night?! i can
> still feel lots of the pain related to some of his
> unjust accusations, but it does not dominate my
> perceiving anymore. & no one with the slightest
> psychological understanding would believe me when i
> say that i did not, sometimes, enjoy the flamings.
> yet i can alsoimagine doug millison's pain; i saw a
> photo just the other day. not everything i posted to
> or about him was justified. i hope he sometimes
> thinks similar vice verca.

No one is innocent here, I realize that.  But whether
or not I agree with Doug on any given interpretive
point is beside the point.  I've generally spoken up
about any sort of nastiness here, somewhere along the
line, onlist or offlist, but, again, I do not like to
see any single person singled out, esp. for seemingly
no better reason than to single him/her out ...  

> i mean, a guy lovin' pynchon, acid & brian wilson
> can, actually, not be that bad ... so why not take a
> new look, making at least the try to keep
interested,          
> respectful list-relations?

And, of course, we all love Pynchon here, don't we? 
Which is why we're so protective of him and his texts.
 But this, by the way, is why I don't mind the
occasional seemingly offtopic chit-chat 'round here,
and join in when at least minimally qualified to do
so.  Community building ...  

You and I, for example, kai, are often diametrically
opposed on many topics, Pynchon not being the least of
them, but we do share similar interests, and I believe
we have constructively exchanged information,
interpretations, even.  And, so far as I know, we
haven't been taking potshots at each other ... 

I will note, by the way, that my posting of Zizek on
gnosticism was decidedly NOT intended to incur your
ire--indeed, I almost posted a disclaimer to that
effect, but I trust that you'll see that what I posted
is related to readings I've made here before, readings
of mine which preexisted my participation here.  But I
did figure you'd be interested, at least ...

Zizek is someone I'm trying to get a handle on,
someone who I don't always agree with myself, someone
I might not even want to agree with at times, from
what I can tell, but someone whose texts I think might
prove useful in reading Pynchon's ...

> this may include constructive conflict. you perhaps 
> did not realize it, but i've already started this
> try ...

I've been very appreciative of efforts to increase the
peace, or at least not the nastiness, around here ...
 
> kai  //:: ps: i'm not aware of having taken any side
> in any war regarding the lsd-discussion; it's just
> that psychedelica saved my life ...

Again, just seemed like the moment to speak my piece,
is all.  I'd barely been able to hear that
"discussion" over the increasing, and irrelevant,
rancor ...  

But, hey, here's my two bits.  Although I can't even
guess, much less remember anymore, why it might be
important to determine just how widely known LSD and
its effects were ca. 1964 OR 1966 (and that "Blue Boy"
epsisode was the one with which Dragnet returned to TV
in 1967, in color, so ...), well ... well, er, what
was the question again?  Really, all I could read was
people arguing with each other for the sake of arguing
with each other, so ...

So, well, here's to hoping that, in the long run, this
post was a better use of my time than the notes I
wanted to post on various and sundry items ...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/