Not for nothing but....

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:53, Terrance wrote:

> The irony here is that wrangling over the meaning of the noun
> "nothingness" on a single page in a huge and complex novel in an absurd
> manner has prevented a discussion of  "nothingness", Existentialism,
> Atheism, so on ... as a driving force, theme,  or idea in the novel or
> in Pynchon's novels. 


I thought M. Chevalier was going to get back to us with his
investigation of Existentialism in V.

Being and Nothingness  

By the way, everyone was an Existentialist back in the fifties. Don't
remember anyone actually reading the book however. Perhaps a translation
was not yet available.

P.


> 
> You know, this discussion would not probably never get bogged down like
> this if the contexts was DeLillo or Gaddis. What is it about Pynchon or
> the Pynchon Critical Industry that gets people into such absurd dead end
> End Zones? 
> 
> PS I'm not avoiding your quires S~Z, Mind, Consciousness, Wholeness,
> etc., just thinking  about the best way to include Jung and not get my
> ass in trouble.