A lurker speaks (was: RE: Re: better version of the pynchon list?)

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Well, Brent, I'll make it easy for you.  So far, I haven't posted anything technically "on topic," and there's a good chance I never will. So from now on you can just consider all of my posts "off topic," okay?
Barbara
PS: Look through the archives (keyword: filter) to find out how to filter undesirables out. Something was posted a while back.  


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Brent Edwards cbrente at alltel.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:54:57 -0500
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: A lurker speaks (was: RE: Re: better version of the pynchon list?)


I've been subscribed to this list off and on for over two years now. I have
never posted a single line. There are many reasons for this, but the primary
one is that I have felt more than a little intimidated. I've not been
intimidated by the heat of the flame wars that erupt here (actually this
list is rather tame compared to many online spaces I inhabit), but by the
fact that it became painfully obvious to me early on that I was totally out
of my league.

I'm not an academic nor do I have even a tenuous connection to the lit-crit
establishment. I'm not even a very good writer. Beyond the odd dumb
question, I have little to contribute. But I have gained much by lurking
here. I stumbled onto this list at the beginning of GRGR in 1999, and I
found the discussion here at that time invaluable in furthering my
understanding of the text. I missed the beginning of the discussion of MD,
but even sneaking in late as it were I looked forward to much of the same
experience I had during GRGR.

*That* expectation sure didn't last long.

I am so tired of seeing topic-specific listservs and other online discussion
areas hijacked by obnoxious idiots who just don't - or won't - get it. And
pynchon-l now has its own sterling example:

barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

> I can't recall seeing Doug post anything on Mason & Dixon, or at
> least not on the  analytical aspects of it. He steers pretty
> clear, it seems, as do a lot of us. So why the fuss? It seems
> kinda rash to go start up another list. (Not that I'm trying to
> discourage you, Good Heavens, no!) I guess I could see how we
> might be a little distracting sometimes, but, really, nobody's
> bothering your "work." I mean, if you can't focus, I think that's
> more your problem...

Why did this quote cause me to post when it is hardly the most outrageous
thing she has written? Because it makes it obvious that she understands
perfectly well why many of us find her words so exasperating; she just
doesn't care. A "little distracting" indeed. *On this list*, I don't give a
damn about seeing material on starving children in Afghanistan, or how
stupid George Bush is, or how the response to the WTC attacks is really just
a smokescreen to build pipelines across Afghanistan, or any other conspiracy
theory-of-the-moment. Neither do I really give a damn about what Pynchon
himself thinks about current events.

I implore Millison, barbara, and their acolytes: If you can't just
unsubscribe or shut up about this 9/11-related material, please at least
insert an "Off Topic" tag in your subject headers.

Can we *please* get on with Mason & Dixon?

Brent Edwards




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .