Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion

[Paul Mackin]

barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

> So, an objective reading is one nearest to the author's meaning, even though
> you don't think it's really possible to read objectively.  Too many
> interpretive steps along the way, you say.  Okay,  I agree.  But does that
> mean we shouldn't try? Try to read objectively?  Why else would the cover of
> my copy of GR say "the most important work of fiction yet produced by any
> living writer"?  Surely not for the great insights into my flushing cheeks
> and my little black cat.  It may not be possible, but I still think we
> should strive for objectivity.

You mean, you CAN tell a book by its cover. Don't you know that even those
notorious deceivers of the gullible you've so helpfully  warned us against
namely the Washington Post and the New York Times would label statements as to
"the most important fiction yet produced by a living writer" as subjective
opinion  not to mention  (in this particular case)  pure advertising.

 You've going to have to show a lot of improvement before you make the Cheney
list.

        P.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20011123/1c291e44/attachment.html>