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

[The Great Quail]

Tim writes,

> 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.

Well, it's not like the Vinelanders weren't "pushing" back. If I recall,
someone was circulating a hosting schedule before a decision was even made
on what book to read.

>Now a few PF folks
> are balking at that.

I hope you aren't counting me. I never made any claims to want a restricted
discussion. This "balking" claim is starting to sound like another case of
"repeat it enough times and it becomes the truth."

>It wouldn't take all that much effort to equate the
> work of Nabokov to the works of P, would it?

That's not the point, and you know it. Read through some of these
"imploding" posts, and you'll see plenty of commentary on that.

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

Oh, come on, for heaven's sake! I think a few of us have explained fairly
well and in great detail why we want a more free and unrestricted
discussion. To accuse us of being lazy and slovenly is really off base, and
rather offensive. 

Look, if this *insulting* and sour-grapes attitude keeps up, especially on
the part of yourself and Doug, we might as well abandon the fucking read.
It's not worth the headache.

An alternate non-P P-List is looking better and better to me for a PF
reading....

--Quail, somewhat less respectfully