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

[Tim Strzechowski]

Jeez, I spend an afternoon at Wrigley Field and the whole list implodes!

Basically, I stand by my previous assertion:  a few people who "pushed" for
a group reading of PF assured the P-list that, among other things, it would
help us understand and appreciate the works of Pynchon.  Now a few PF folks
are balking at that.  It wouldn't take all that much effort to equate the
work of Nabokov to the works of P, would it?  Not everyone on this list is
reading Pale Fire, for whatever reason(s), but everyone is subscribed to the
P-list because of an interest in Pynchon (I think that's a fair assuption).
Wouldn't it be nice to make your examination of PF relevant to *everyone* on
this list, rather than just the 20 or so who showed an interest in reading
Nabokov (remember the headcount?)?  Mightn't tying Nabokov into what we know
of Pynchon entice a few *more* listers to try reading PF?  As I said, it's
not too tough to make the connections when they arise, and it would
certainly be worth the effort to make the connections as much as possible
for the readers of PF, the readers of VL, the lurkers who dare not post a
word for fear of chastisement, for the N-listers watching us, etc.

If anything, it's beginning to sound like *not making connections to
Pynchon's works* is an excuse for literary laziness and slovenly
scholarship.

Tim Strzechowski