"Us"? (i.e. you and millison!?)

[jbor]

----------
>From: monroe 
>

> ,,, from as if you all didn't know, Thoams Pynchon, "Is it O.K. to be a
> Luddite?," New York Times Book Review, October 28th, 1984, pp. 1, 40-1
> ...
>
> "... It has taken no major
> gift of prophecy to see how these three curves of development might
> plausibly converge, and before too long. ... "

It is to say the least embarrassing to have to keep reiterating this fairly
simple fact. As Pynchon clearly states in this 1984 essay -- reinforcing the
point in that final phrase just to make sure there can be no confusion about
it -- he does *not* believe that the "three curves of development", that is,
"the Manhattan Project, the German long-range rocket program and the death
camps, such as Auschwitz", were convergent prior to 1945, nor that they had
in fact yet converged by 1984. Certainly, he warns, they "might plausibly
converge" in the as yet undisclosed future.

And indeed, I agree that _GR_ comprises a similar warning about the possible
*future* convergence of "these three curves of development", and have argued
it consistently in fact. But unless you are going to suggest that Pynchon
changed his mind sometime between the writing of _GR_ and the 'Luddite'
article then I'm afraid that that's going to be the score for the novel as
well. On that you will just have take your lumps, I'm afraid. By all means
dispute what he writes and quote your ancillary texts which contend that the
three "curves of development" did, in fact, converge during the Third Reich.
But, as I say, in that case you are arguing *against* Pynchon's words, not
*with* them.

Your prolixity one can attribute as jejune, but your constant antagonism and
pedantry seem to well from a deeper agenda. Just what is "at stake" -- apart
from your concerted and continual attempts to put me to one, that is -- here
for you, monroe?

> Again,
> sir, seeing as you've apparently some special insight here the rest of
> us so sorely lack, if you'd be so kind, do tell us, please, what IS
> "*the author*" "getting at"?  Cards, table.  In the meantime, I'll be
> happily continuing my archaeological excavations here.  "Am not Prince
> jbor, nor was meant to be," alas ...

"Dish but not take" indeed!