Auntie-Oedipus

[s~Z]

>>>You're seriously suggesting there's some difficulty in agreeing on which
words are printed on the pages of M&D? If so, wow.  If not, whew.<<<

No. I am suggesting that language in the hands of a genius like Pynchon is
being used in a very complicated and multifaceted way that goes beyond the
words on the printed page, and that realities are being suggested and
pointed to and symbolized both by what is actually printed and what is not
actually printed in words, as well as by the syntax and structure of the
language and images being used, and that to critique someone's reading
because it strays beyond 'what Pynchon wrote' is a meaningless and glib
critique which is better served by a detailed opinion detailing as to why
you think the one critiqued is straying. I thought Terrance did a good job
of such in illustrating why he does not think the scene involves Dixon
whipping the man. I still enjoy jbor's reading and think it is supportable.
Your contention that Dixon's words are never to be taken literally, that he
does not mean the violence that he speaks can be supported as well, but I do
not buy your argument. Your argument most clearly requires not taking
Dixon's words on the printed page literally, because if they are taken at
face value, they are the words of a violent man. And his words combined with
the phrase 'placed his fist in the path' suggest a violent act to me. Now
I'm not going to dismiss your reading by saying you are straying beyond what
Pynchon wrote, because what Pynchon wrote is subject to many interpretations
just like that tree in your front yard which only exists as a tree because
there is consensual agreement to experience it as such. That you are a fan
of Pynchon, whose multiperspectualism is one of his strongest suits, and yet
maintain a conceptualization such as 'what Pynchon wrote' puzzles me.