Auntie-Oedipus

[Doug Millison]

At 7:36 PM -0700 8/23/02, s~Z wrote:
>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,

Agreed....

>and that to critique someone's reading
>because it strays beyond 'what Pynchon wrote' is a meaningless and glib
>critique

...dodging the stick...

>which is better served by a detailed opinion detailing as to why
>you think the one critiqued is straying.

...I believe I've given you this, in this thread....

>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.'

...they're all interesting, that's true...

>Your contention that Dixon's words are never to be taken literally,


...I never say never, not in this thread either, that's your
interpretation, slipping that "never" in, not my "contention" ....

>that he
>does not mean the violence that he speaks can be supported as well, but I do
>not buy your argument.


OK.  It's not for sale. Freely offered, for the sake of the discussion,
this story we're writing here around the margins of M&D...


>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.

I would say, a man struggling to master his violent urges, in this case
rather successfully, after a wobbly start -- slow learner, but comes
through in the clutch...most clearly....

>And his words combined with
>the phrase 'placed his fist in the path' suggest a violent act to me.

Agreed up to the point when he restrains himself, leaves the fist in place,
lays down in front of the warwagon, waiting for the peace train...

>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.

I believe it's a tree, with "its" own consciousness, and that there is a
soul in ev'ry stone....

>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.

There are worse things than being puzzled.
I read what Pynchon wrote, and puzzle over it.

I do honor all these interpretations, whether you want to acknowledge that
or not.
I also happen to prefer my own reading and interpretation of Pynchon,
informed and enhanced as they are by everybody else's I have had a chance
to experience.
Both/and.
We're all right,
the elephant more than we can imagine --
no end to unfolding Pynchon's texts,
or knotting into them...

>And, again speaking as a Spanish Californian, that Pale Fire is bitchin.'

Common ground, once more.




Doug Millison
http://dougday.blogspot.com/
http://pynchonoid.blogspot.com/
http://www.Online-Journalist.com