meta-Plist

[Doug Millison]

s~Z
>Thus, the whole point, rather than being a response which expressed your
>opinions about M&D and why it stands on its own for you, is a description of
>other people and their motives or attitudes that resulted in their opinions.

That's not far off the mark, as far as it goes. We were talking about
expectations and being disappointed in M&D as compared to GR, however, and
I addressed that topic.


>that the reason 'those people' don't like Pynchon's
>extra-GR novels as much is because they are looking for something they found
>in GR


If a person says her expectations are based on reading GR, and she says M&D
didn't live up to those expectations, is it not reasonable to assume she
didn't find in M&D something that she found in GR?

Regarding comparing novels, I agree, to a certain degree, with what
Terrance just said:
"Every novel is a unique project. But if we treat every novel as simply
and only  a unique project, we can not have a "science" with which
to study them, talk about them, compare them.  We can't compare them
unless we have such a science."

I don't think there is such a "science", by the way, but many noble efforts
to construct same.  My personal opinion is that the project to make of
reading a "science" is misguided, in general, but like many a bus ride it
can be a lot of fun -- or nightmarish -- whether you get where you want to
go or not.

Terrance, I do enjoy a lot of Pynchon criticism I read (most of that in
Pynchon Notes, but I read other articles and books as I have the time), I
agree criticism can be an art, but, as I've said before, imo it's an art
form with an audience rather more limited than the audience for the work of
art being criticized.  Talking with people about novels, Pynchon's
included, can be fun and enlightening, too.  It all adds to the experience
I have when I open a book, Pynchon or somebody else, and read.


>the implication is

This is Keith adding what Ketih sees as the "implication" of my post,
moving beyond what I wrote. I'm not going to hold myself responsible for
the "implications" anybody  reads ("writes") into my email posts.

Here's something else I've written in this thread, in response to Keith's
query:

"As readers we grow and change, imo, and sometimes our favored authors don't
manage to keep up, or, more accurately perhaps, we move beyond (no value
judgement intended) the place we were when we first enjoyed those authors.
"Less mature" and "less adventurous" sound like value judgements, and I'm
not making value judgements in this respect, not at all.

"Every reader's response to a work of literature is valid, imo,  and none
is worth more than the rest.  Some may meet my expectations or needs
better than others, but that says as much if not more about me than it does
about the other reader's (critic's, theorist's, professor's, etc.) opinion."

For "we", read "Doug", if the we doesn't sit right with you. Note that I've
qualified everything I've said in this thread with you -- by using "in my
opinion," "in my experience" etc.,  by speaking of "my experience," and by
reassuring my interlocutor that I honor and value his opinion.   (Please
note as well, I've been couching my opinions in this sort of language ever
since I've been on Pynchon-L -- you could look it up -- which hasn't kept
people from overlooking it all this time, perhaps due to some sort of
visceral response, I don't know, and I don't mean that to apply to any
particular P-lister, it's just a thought. )

What else do you recommend I do to bring my responses up to the standard
you'd like to see in this forum, where, by the way, I'm happy to see you
again?

Learning,