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

[jbor]

----------
>From: Dave Monroe <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
>

> But--and again here's where it might not have hurt to
> consult my actual post (posted recently enough that I
> don't feel obligated to hyperlink to it here)--do note
> that those "two"--"at least two"--"ways to approach
> that letter" were not "interpretation of" and
> "argument against" (by the way, until now, I'd have
> assumed that  the latter there would require the
> former, though I think you've just shown how that
> seeming necessity can be short-circuited here ...),
> but, rather, "as indicative of how certain elements
> might be operating in those Pynchonian texts," esp.
> those Pynchonian fictions,

yes, "interpretation of" the letter as saying something which supports a
particular reading of Pynchon's fiction

> "or as the text under
> consideration itself," that is, as the so-called
> "primary" text.

"argument against" what the letter ostensibly says, or argues

I think I followed you. What I found odd was the way that you selectively
deconstructed a couple of Pynchon's definitions and arguments, but then
claimed others as QED to support a particular interpretation of or approach
towards the texts. This is the "double standard" I was referring to.

What you seem to be reiterating (over and over and over ... ) is that
Pynchon makes a false distinction between literate and preliterate
societies, and that he is labouring under a false assumption about what the
terms "Germany" and "German" might constitute as descriptors, while not
acknowledging that, even so, these "elements might be operating" in his
fiction as well (even though you think he's wrong about them). Wouldn't it
be more logical to admit that these distinctions and assumptions (false or
otherwise, that's surely a "relative" judgement or opinion, isn't it? surely
Derrida is able to see beyond his own subjectivity, even if only
hypothetically) are evident in the fiction?

best