Walk your way

[Doug Millison]

jbor
>
>Critics are readers. It's an artificial distinction distinction to try and
>say otherwise.

OK, as far as the observation goes, but by critics I mean someone who is
reading in order to make some sort of formal critique, not reading for
pleasure.  Slice it however you like it, set up your straw men and knock
'em down if it makes you feel good to do so. These are the dog days, after
all.


>
There's no real difference between
>"get[ting] it" and having a "'comprehensive' understanding" of a text.


Really?  By "comprehensive" I means, well, just that, understanding
something in toto, "including all or everything" -- and I simply don't
believe you or any other reader can come to grips with any text to that
degree.  Please feel free to disagree, but I don't believe you can support
an argument to the contrary, i.e,. argue successfully that you can reach a
truly comprehensive understanding of a text, because that's just not
possible -- those signifiers just keep on a-slippin- an' a-slidin' no
matter how hard you try to lasso 'em all and herd 'em on in the corral.

I remain satisfied that Pynchon stays several steps ahead of even his most
attentive his readers, but if you feel you have a comprehensive
understanding of his texts, more power to you, don't let me pop your
bubble, although I think you overreach in this instance and give yourself
credit for insight you don't really possess.


comprehensive
adj 1: including all or everything; "comprehensive coverage"; "a
comprehensive history of the revolution"; "a comprehensive survey"; "a
comprehensive education"
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=comprehensive

(Feel free to choose another dictionary, or another meaning of the word.
This is the one I'm working with in this instance.  But I know my text will
support many readings -- fewer than Pynchon's, I'm sure, but I doubt even
the most attentive reader will exhaust them all.)