pynchon-l-digest V2 #1590

[Doug Millison]

>Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:49:46 +1100
>From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
>Subject: Re: answering jody Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1582
>
>monroe expressed a desire for clarification about a notion that Pynchon's
>"genius" is indisputable and that this is then used as the starting point
>for interpretation of the texts. millison has, on occasion, argued 
>something approaching this I think.


Wrong, and this is a very good example of rj's straw man arguments. 
I have written more that once that I believe Pynchon to be a literary 
genius, hardly a controversial statement, but I have never taken the 
step that rj here tries to attribute to me, in which I would move 
from some sort of assumption of Pynchon's genius to support  some 
particular interpretation of Pynchon's writings -- that's simply not 
true.  Having written a series of brilliant novels and stories and 
essays, I've argued that it's worth paying attention to what Pynchon 
says, but I've laid out no argument in support of certain 
interpretations based on some sort of  authority stemming from 
Pynchon's genius -- that's a figment of rj's feverish imagination.

Moreover, anybody who tries to remain in dialogue with rj in 
Pynchon-L will soon see rj using this tactic, where rj just makes up 
some sort of outrageous assertion, attributes it to his interlocutor, 
then attacks it and attacks his interlocutor for supposedly holding 
that position or making that argument.  He's done this consistently 
with Monroe, with Terrance, with Hollander, with Derek Maus, & etc. 
-- maybe even with you, davemarc, when you had your back-and-forth 
with rj. When the straw man tactic doesn't work, he moves on to 
simple character assassination and ugly slurs, such as the 
anti-Semitic comments with which he taunted Derek last fall,  his 
braindead pummelling of Hollander, & etc.

Also please note that rj is now arguing (in his conversation with 
jody) for the presence of the Holocaust in GR in a way not at all 
dissimilar from the simple observations I made earlier (strip away 
his simplistic PoMo 101 verbiage), having flip-flopped from the 
position he took when he was flaming me on that subject -- a great 
example of the intellectual dishonesty he displays, perhaps 
unwittingly, in his attempt to keep an argument going, to find a way 
to disagree with anybody who's willing to keep talking with him.

You want to be in conversation with somebody like that, be my guest. 
I'm having none of it.  Although I do reserve the right to defend 
myself against outright lies and character assassination.

-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>