McHoul & Wills' chapter Re: SLSL Intro "Almost But Not Quite Me ..."

[Dave Monroe]

Back to being Mr. Sniffy, are we?  Well, not me, so
not "we," of course, but ... but of course like others
here I'm used to the inevitable snide comments from
our wonder down under here.  And here I was so polite
during Mason & Dixon, but ...

--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree, and I have to add that I was quite
> surprised to see it posted (ad nauseam) without
> either qualification or acknowledgement that it is
> so irrelevant and poorly-conceived. When there's so
> much other critical commentary dealing with
> the 'Intro' the fact that this particular chapter
> was "transferred" here to the extent it has been
> seemed to me to be a covert endorsement of its
> contents. Perhaps it wasn't. Who knows.

Those who know, know.  The Nose knows.  Whatever ...

No, as I've done "ad nauseum" whenever hosting here, I
post anything/everything that seems relevant, or at
least interesting, or at least entertaining to me, is
all.  And as much of it as seems necessary for someone
reading to get the gist of it.  "Contents may not
reflect the opinion of management," so ... 

So had any of this alleged "so much other critical
commentary dealing with the 'Intro'" crossed my path
these past few weeks, I'd've posted "ad nauseum" from
them as well.  As it was, however, I had McHoul &
Wills and that Pynchon Notes paper at hand, and that
only after mounting a nigh unto archaeological
expedition through the ol' Monroe College Library ...

But as always, as well, not quite having the endurance
much less the inclination to post ENTIRE texts, I do
like to slap up enough of them so's the folks at home
can play along.  Not everybody has even what meager
resources I have, much less, again, the endurance
and/or inclination to follow up on references, so ...

So I gave y'all a little more than a little somethin'
to kick around a little bit, which is generally Not a
Bad Thing is these little discussions, is it?  Put
y'all to work, which is Not a Bad Thing, either.  This
I've assumed is the role of the host, no?  E.g. ...

Me, hosting or not, I've long taken it as my role to
look up the stuff others (e.g., Our Man Jackson here,
in his still much appreciated M&D torchbearing
marathon) leave behind.  I don't have a lot of spare
time, so I pretty much stick to basic research and let
the y'all work out what's going on from there ...

My take on WP is, McH & W could have said pretty much
whatever they said in half as many words (all those
"very"s alone ...).  Anglo-(and, apparently,
Australo-)American "Deconstructive" lit crit's largely
never really gotten the hang of Derridean idiom, which
is why I stick with the philosophical wing ...  

Not so sure about the rest of whatever McH&W had to
say about Pynchon (though they do highlight some
noteworthy tics, anxieties, whatever in that "Intro"),
but I do recall thinking there was something to their
notion of the "post-rhetorical."  So argue with McH &
W, bicker among yrselves, but, hey, don't kill the
messenger.  There's more where that came from ... 

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