V.V. (12) Pynchon's letter to Thomas F. Hirsch

[Dave Monroe]

There are at least two ways in which to approach that
letter: as indicative of how certain elements might be
operating in those Pynchonian texts, those fiction
(indicative of authorial "intent" some [not
necessarily me] would say); or as the text under
consideration itself, the "primary" text, if you will.
 The first time around, I was largely concerned with
the first approach; this past time, the second, though
I've largely pointed out the same things on both
passes.  I've taken both approaches throughout here,
however, to fiction, nonfiction (not to be confused
with "fact"), the critical apparatus (inc. posts up to
and including my own), and pretty much anything and
everything that's crossed my path.  Of course I've
largely argued in support of my "own"
interpreatations, but it's been pointed out to me
that, esp. during my hosting stin, I've offered quite
a bit that needn't fall into any particular line of
reading here.  So hopefully somebody'll make use of
it.  Again, though, "what Pynchon meant" and "what
Pynchon says"--what anybody means and what anybody
says--are not necessarily the same thing.  Often it's
that gap that proves most interesting, most
productive, of meaning, even ...


--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ----------
> >From: "Dave Monroe" <davidmmonroe at hotmail.com>
> >
> 
> > Well, lessee here
> 
> Thanks for the link. You did indeed cite more from
> the letter than I
> recalled, but your approach to its significance on
> both occasions has been
> idiosyncratic to say the least. On the one hand, you
> seem to offer it as QED
> to support a particular interpretation of or
> approach towards Pynchon's
> fiction. On the other, you argue against some of its
> contentions (the ones
> which, arguably, aren't in support of that
> particular interpretation or
> approach) as inaccurate, or "problematic". As I
> believe you yourself
> commented, "you can't have absolute relativism and
> yr very own value
> judgments, too", which is pretty much the double
> standard you seem to be
> trying to operate under at present. Mind you, this
> is only what I've been
> "reading you as suggesting" of course. But that's a
> given, isn't it?
> 
> best
> 
> ps "big one" is the braying ass of course. Come
*on*.

So you're "Slothrop666" (under whose name that
"braying ass" comment was posted, of course)?  Well,
now I'm really confused ...


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/