NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?

[David Morris]

--- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204 at comcast.net> wrote:
> However, I respectfully disagree with Quail.  We're all readers here, and
we're all pretty big people.  As such, when it's time to "rejuvenate the
spirit" by reading something other than Pynchon, we do so on our own time. In
many ways, however, this list is like an elective class we've signed up for
(albeit an unruly one at times), a class based on a common interest, and
reading Nabokov in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but unless it somehow gets
looped back to why ALL of us are here on the Pynchon list to begin with, then
this group reading of a Nabokov novel could have -- and perhaps should have --
taken place elsewhere.

Tim, nobody elected you as the rule-maker here.  I think this kind of complaint
only exhibits a large amount of insecurity.  Hop on the insecurity bandwagon if
you want.

> As someone who is reading both books, I don't consider myself a "dissenter."
However, pynchonoid is correct when *reminding us* that the PF read was
marketed as a reading that would illuminate our understanding of Pynchon.
Davemarc posted a list of suggested critical angles to help us obtain that
goal.  Vincent Maeder helped define the goal of the reading by giving it its
name and credo. Much discussion about it ensued back in June. And since we are
still in the preliminary stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that "an
examination of Nabokov's influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale Fire"
(hence, "NPPF") will become the modus operandi for the duration of the
discussion.

Do as you will and hope for what you want.  As you say "we're all pretty big
people," so don't try to be our nanny.

David Morris

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com