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

[Dave Monroe]

Well, there's been annoyance in the past, and hradly
only my own, over the tendency on Robert's part to be
dismissive of anyone he disagrees with--or simply
doesn't like--in ways seemingly designed to offer
plausible (albeit never quite so) deniability in the
event he gets called on it (after which he'll play the
offended party, as I suspect I'll see shortly) ...  

No, William, Bill, whoever, is right, it was expected,
predictable, even.  The constant Big Fish in a small
pond thing here (e-mail address domain names
notwithstanding).  Me, I'm not here to challenge
anybody's alpha male status, unless one calls pointing
out that there really is no such thing here a
challenge, so ... 

--- MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> 
> I didn't read Rob's post as an attack on Dave Monroe
> personally.  There has been annoyance in the past
> over the cutting and pasting of copious amounts of 
> material from elsewhere on the internet onto the
> P-list; no opinion offered, no comment, just
> regurgitation.  Granted that was not done by someone
> in the role of reading moderator.  

Well, I figured it'd get a reaction, at least, and it
did.  I didn't particularly want to spend the better
part of a day doing it, but ... well, having only
unearthed it at the bitter (and I do mean bitter ...)
end when I'd meant to parcel it out as various things
came up, well ...

Well, no, that's one of those things, either you're
going to let it play itself out, or not.  Robert, of
course, has complained when I've posted long excerpts,
he's complained when I've not posted enough of an
excerpt for his tastes, basically, he just complains
when I post, period.  Again, predictable ...

But failing the convenience of somebody slapping
something up online so's I can just cut'n'paste a
little something and leave y'all a link to (or not to)
click on, I figure, once I start in, I better include
enough from anyone without access to the complete text
(or whatever) enough to give 'em an idea of what's
going on therein.  And McH & W are elaborate ...
 
> Dave Monroe's point of view--that he's just the
> messenger, offering food for thought--is certainly
> defensible.  However, I agree with Rob that the
> value to the list of the posted material--which is
> unoriginal and poorly argued--would have been
> increased with some judicious editing and some sort 
> of intro or overview.  (Nor should this be read as
> an attack on the moderator.)

Not an attack.  No problem.  But keep in mind, I left
out an awful (and I do mean awful ...) lot.  Again, to
the extent that I was willing to lend 'em my typing
hands to do so, I let McH & W provide their own
intro/overview.  Whaddaya want, a deconstructive dumb
show before the act itself?  Let me get the puppets
...

No, the boys are hardly masters of argumentation fu,
which made my task even more difficult, as their leaps
are hardly self-evident, even to somebody who's used
to "literary deconstruction" (e.g., me), leaving me to
let them spell them out ...

As for "unoriginal," well, there's somebody else out
there who'd made the SAME arguments?  What's esp.
interesting is that McH & W raise issues raised as
well in our own discussion of the "Intro," esp. in
raising the question of well, just who's doin' the
Introducin' here?  Plain-speakin' Tom Pynchon or yet
another Pynchonian character?  And so forth ...

No, there really isn't much sustained commentary on
that "Introduction" out there, so far as I've seen, so
far as anyone's pointed out to me, and I thought it my
duty to at least acknowledge what there IS, so ... so,
again, the point being to generate discussion ... 

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