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

[Tim Strzechowski]

> 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.

_Vineland_ had been brought up by *several* listers over the past year or so
as a suggested choice for the next group read, given a) it's relevance to
the current political milieu, and b) it hadn't been done in several years.
In the past, certain listers have claimed that when one wants to propose a
group read, one simply posts a hosting schedule and sees if it fills up.  I
did.  It did.  There was interest in reading _Vineland_, and there continues
to be.  So, golly.  Your point?

>
> 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."

Oh ...  I misunderstood.  So, when you sed: "I for one feel no obligation to
continually link Pale Fire to Pynchon during this reading" and "To believe
that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to Pynchon in order to
please a vocal minority is misguided" and "Policing the discussion so that
all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions connect directly to Pynchon is a
limitation that defuses any real freedom of communication" and even "please
stop wasting bandwidth by insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP
connection," these statements were meant in the spirit of facilitating a
non-restrictive synthesis of discussion between Nabokov and Pynchon?  How
silly of me.

>
> >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.

"Plenty" is a relative term.  Rob did a nice job earlier this evening with
his post.  About two or three other posts thus far have begun to do it, too.
But "plenty"?  Waxing hyperbolic, I'm afraid.

>
> 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.

You're the only one I've really heard say anything about a need to be "free"
and "unrestricted."  This is an *unmoderated* list, for christ's sake ...
how much more "free" and "unrestricted" do you want it?  And remember, the
bottom line on this issue (like it or not) is to be found on the Pynchon-L
home page: "As far as we're concerned, pretty much any Pynchon-related topic
is OK on this list, from Pynchon apocrypha through light discussion of our
favourite passages, to litcrit as heavy as you want."
http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l  The intention of the list owners is
to provide a forum for *Pynchon-related* discussion. Bottom line.  Period.

Basically, you can do as you want.  You and others will anyways.  But
setting out to read PF for its own sake without the requisite P connection
alienates a lot of listers -- lurkers, perhaps, but Pynchon enthusiasts
nonetheless. Pretty unfortunate.

>
> --Quail, somewhat less respectfully
>

That's too bad.  I thought we were having a pretty good discussion.


Tim S. (wearing his "free" and "unrestricted" boxer shorts)