facts? interpretations?

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
>To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Fw: facts? interpretations?
>Date: Sun, May 20, 2001, 6:20 PM
>

> I
>> mean, since we know squat about TRP's actions in real life, how can you
>> claim he'd be saying one thing and doing another?  How do we know jbor's
> not
>> just quoted a nugget of pynchon's belief (bear in mind some of us aren't
> up
>> to speed with M&D)?

Actually, the tiny snippet I quoted from _M&D_ begins Chapter 35, part of a
sort of motto to the chapter, but it's a contingent "motto" because of
Wicks' status as narrative agent for much of the novel, and because of the
fictional status of the book, "_Christ and History_" the 'quote' purportedly
comes from. Pynchon engineers this ambivalence. What follows immediately
after this quasi-motto is quite a lively debate, apparently unmediated by
Wicks, about truth and value in history ("facts" and interpretations and the
like, subjects which some on the list would rather weren't part of the
discussion, apparently ... ) which actually embodies the idea that "there
are no facts, only interpretations". In my opinion, of course ...

best

> > >     Facts are but the Play-things of lawyers,-- Tops and Hoops,
> > >     forever a-spin....
> > >                                         (_M&D_ 349)