SLSL fuzzy

[Wasted Words]

I understand why some readers would prefer to read
this Introduction as a fiction or some kind of April
Fools/1984 joke. They contend that  Pynchon must be
pulling our legs. How else can we account for all the
errors and the overall fuzziness of it? With the furry
porcupine the "narrator"  (I say the author -- not
nearly Tom, but Tom Pynchon himself) demonstrates an
ignorance of matters of fact. And this is
disconcerting because he's talking about a story he
wrote and rewrote. If this Introduction were a fiction
we might be amused:  We might assume that the author
knows that the narrator has got the facts wrong and
that we are now in on it. This is a fairly common
device in fiction, but in an essay it is called bad
writing. 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com