Fw: MDDM Ch. 12 Summary & Notes

[Paul Mackin]

Dave's post was sent to both me and the list. Just in case the list copy
doesn't arrive I forward mine.

About dictionaries I must confess that there are certain words I've been
meaning to look up for literally years.

Never wanted to interrupt the flow.

:-)

P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Monroe" <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
To: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: MDDM Ch. 12 Summary & Notes


> And, again, to each his own, though, again, I would
> point out that there is ultimately no way to draw a
> line between what is and what isn't "necessary" to
> reading any given text.  One might provisionally
> determine what might or might not prove, if not
> "necessary," at least, I don't know, "immediately
> useful" or somesuch, to any given reading thereof, but
> ...
>
> But, even then, there are always further commentaries
> to be made, ones which take in other considerations
> not considered in any given reading.  My predilection
> is to take into consideration as much as possible,
> esp. that which might not otherwise have been taken
> into consideration.  That which the builders rejected
> ...
>
> And in this I'm hardly alone here (much less
> elsewhere).  No end of presumably "extratextual"
> knowledge, of literature, of theory, of history, of
> religion, of technology, of science, of culture,
> material or otherwise, of language, and so forth,
> being brought to bear here.  Elsewhere.  As it must,
> necessarily, be ...
>
> Again, there is no outside-the-text.  One might draw
> such a(n ultimately Augustinian?) circumference
> provisionally, in regards to the presumed centering
> effect of a given reading of any given text, but one
> unavoidably risks some nigh-unto-inevitable
> decentering.  Texts, and the readings thereof which
> are no less textual, may always be reread. Ever that
> formerly rejected cornerstone might yet be decornered
> in turn ...
>
> But, again, my comments were obviously pointed in more
> than one direction there, and not even primarily in
> this one, so ...
>
> --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
> > I'm wouldn't want to put too much stock in the value
> > of "research" as a means of enhancing one's
> > "understanding" of a book like M&D. I'm talking
> > about research that is going on while, and is part
> > and parcel of, the reading the book.Naturally having
> > a broad knowledge of history and other writing
> gained
> > in advance over the years will enable the reader to
> > derive much more from a writer like Pynchon than
> > would be the case without such a base.  But, while
> > acquiring bits and bites of specific facts the
> writer
> > can be shown to have drawn on in composition may be
> > satisfying in itself and have general eduational
> > value I'd strongly advise divorcing such a project
> > from the reading of the book. This doesn't mean one
> > shouldn't have a dictionary handy.
>
> To each his/her own, then, even when it comes to just
> how and when and where to deploy one's dictionary ...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
>