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

[Dave Monroe]

"Attack" is too strong a word, is all ...

--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> on 28/11/02 6:26 AM, MalignD at aol.com at
> MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks. It wasn't intended as an attack at all. The
> (apparently) offending paragraph of mine was this
> one:
> 
> > 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....

... but that "ad nauseum" essentially makes me
nausea-inducing, nauseating, whatever, whilst the
claim that the (alleged) irrelevance and poor
conception of that chapter is (allegedly) self-evident
implies that my (alleged) "failure" (scare-quotes
here, not a citation) to qualify or acknowledge said
"faults" (again ...) implies that my ... critical
faculties or whatever are deficient in some way or
another.  In the meantime ...

> > When there's so much other critical commentary
> > dealing with the 'Intro' ...

Well, not in my experience.  So where?  Let me know. 
Again, having performed what I take to be the service
of giving y'all at LEAST the gist of what little
sustained discussion of that "Introduction" that I've
seen, well, am flabbergasted NOT to see it argued with
(I post these things to generate thought, reading,
discussion, whatever), but to see shots (cheap or
otherwise) taken at me for doing so.  Note that I 
bitch IN PRINCIPLE about what people post here only in
regards to how it treats other people ...

> ... it struck me that posting huge, tedious slabs of
> their text here without comment or caveat was in
> fact a way of promoting their "interpretation" ...

Again, bitching about it being posted in the first
place vs. simply taking issue with what's being said. 
And, again, just so's it's clear, I didn't write their
book for them, so ...


> The choice to post it and not some other critic's
> commentary was a discursive move

Speaking of "laughable," just who HAVEN'T I posted
from when the time's been ripe here?  Again, complians
when I do, complians when i don't, just plain
complains ...

> and subsequently Dave Monroe did leap to M&W's
> defence ...

Babies, bathwater.  Devil's advocate.  Day in court. 
Whatever ...

> (and, as per usual, for my throat)

And that's already been addressed, and far more
succinctly than I'd otherwise address it here, so ...

> But the fact remains that, along with their travesty
> of deconstructive criticism, M&W spend 30-odd pages
> to make the point that Pynchon doesn't mention 'MMV'
> or _GR_ in the 'Intro'....

Misreading or, at any rate, misrepresentation ...

> I'd imagine 'MMV' isn't mentioned by Pynchon because
> it was decided not to include that story in the
> collection ...

Now THERE'S a topic for discussion ...

> ... but I'd agree that it will be interesting to
> discuss why that particular decision was made ...

Though I can imagine no more rancorous discussion we
COULD have here, now that I think on it, having
absolutely NOTHING to go one, in that "Intro" or
otherwise.  Perhaps too much "imagining" involved ...

> To me it seems ...

And so forth ...

> But, in fact, the 'Intro' does say quite a
> bit about Pynchon's overall literary and cultural
> influences, his formative years and the predominant
> themes in his work ...

Now where were you when I was covering all that as
well?  I do and do and do for you kids, but ...

> ... and if taken at his word some of the stories do
> reveal even more about other events and periods in
> his own life....

Of no small interest to McHoul and Wills in the
chapter as well.  They cover an awful lot we've
covered here as well, albeit in their own peculiar
way.  Again (...), babies, bathwater ...

> The interesting thing is, some readers and critics
> need to discount what Pynchon says about himself and
> his fiction in the 'Intro' because it just doesn't
> fit with what they so desperately want his work to
> be about.

Which ones?  Name names?  "Critics" aren't "readers"? 
Or just a presumably better class of "reader"?  Which
side are you on?  Me, I'd say, all readers are always
already critics; the only way I can see justifying the
distinction is to say, "professional" (or, at any
rate, published ... though we're ALL being "published"
here) "critics and other readers" or somesuch, but ...
but what does Pynchon "say about himself and his
fiction"?  Can it be taken at face value?  This again
is a bone of contention here, elsewhere.  With that
caveat, with precisely what doesn't any of that "fit
with what" critics? readers? "they," at any rate, "so
desperately want his work to be about"?  About what? 
"Desperately"?  Again, keep in mind the eminent
reflexivity of all yr comments here.  Okay ...

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