Readership

[Doug Millison]

At 3:10 PM -0500 8/9/02, Tim Strzechowski wrote:

>In his previous post, Rob gave the
>definitions of "esoteric" and later commented: "The first definition smacks
>of elitism: only the chosen ones, or "Elect" can truly "understand."  This,
>to me, suggests that he denounces the notion of an elitist reading as much
>as anyone else who is a sensible, competent, and engaged reader.


You'd think so, wouldn't you. That's why it always surprises me to see the
way jbor dismisses one or another interpretation of a Pynchon text in this
forum, demanding that an interpretation meet some murky standard that only
jbor seems to know, it must be supported by X lines of text presented in
such and such a fashion, or some such arbitrary nonsense, using the
currently-accepted lit-crit jargon (according to you know who) -- watch the
way he tries to destroy Terrance's non-pomo interpretations, for example,
even when what Terrance is saying makes sense (and sometimes it does), jbor
has to attack it not in terms of the substance of what Terrance is saying,
but instead in terms of whether or not it fits within jbor's own lit-crit
approach to reading -- at least half the time he's criticizing method or
process, not substance, splitting hairs.   It's the sort of smarmy,
holier-than-thou nonsense that characterizes many a person who's worried
whether or not his own stuff is up to snuff, eager to make himself look
good by belittling somebody else, a one-down , I'm right-your're wrong
approach, either-or instead of both-and.  Pynchon's texts are bigger than
any particular reader's response, and all reader responses have value --
even as some may be better suited for one rather than another audience.  If
I'm writing for an audience that expects a certain kind of
lit-crit-theoretical approach, I shouldn't be surprised at the response if
I disappoint or frustrate that expectation. But Pynchon-L is a big tent -
-it's always funny to see somebody throwing around judgements of right or
wrong regarding the responses to Pynchon that we discuss.