The State of the P-List (part 2)

[Tim Strzechowski]

Quail --

1.  Duly noted.  

2.  It's obvious to me that our discussion has run its course and cannot reach resolution.  Why?  Because you insist on pushing an erroneous claim that I (and Doug, apparently) are advocating a "robotic" and "totalitarian" approach to reading Pale Fire when, in fact, you are the one lister who has argued against making *any* connections b/t N and P and I stated that such a reading does a disservice to the List at large. If my characterization of those who don't connect Nabokov to Pynchon seems negative, it's because it's meant to be.  Hey, when you sign up to take a class in creative writing (for example), you don't bitch about all the writing ya gotta do in class.  You signed up for creative writing, and that's what you're there for.  If people sign up for Pynchon-L, they are indeed obligated (yes, obligated) to fulfill the one basic credo of the list owners. When adults start saying "I don't want to" fulfill basic requirements, it sounds like a whiny class of high school sophomores.

3.  "Morris' response to personal attacks"??  Who told *me* to "fuck off"?  Who tried to accuse *me* of "reach exceeding grasp" or something (it was a mangling of the cliche, mind you, but I caught the drift)?
 
4.  To me, the disrespect in our exchange officially began when you signed yourself "somewhat less respectfully."  I know you're going to probably claim that it began when I said "literary laziness and slovenly scholarship."  However, my statement was in response to your post that advocated a straight PF read without *any* relevance to Pynchon whatsoever and that, I'm afraid, would demonstrate a less-than-enlightening critical experience, again given the a. credo of the list owners, and b. the expressed statements of many PF readers who felt the connections would be "unavoidable" and "preferred."

5.  And let's be fair.  I haven't "poked" at people every few minutes to connect to Pynchon. What I've done is try to ensure that the list is in agreement here that the PF discussion with connect to P, as was originally stated back in June.  Show me archive links that demonstrate how I've "poked [listers] every few minutes," or kindly apologize for the accusation.  I appreciate it.


In all frankness (and I'm sure any unfortunate lister who's bothered to follow this thread up to this point will agree), this discussion is beginning to sound like a married couple who are no longer arguing about the issue at hand, but arguing about how they are arguing.  I don't have a problem with you, Quail, and I find your contributions to the list valuable.  Perhaps you'd say the same of mine, perhaps not, don't know.  Regardless, I think we have a respectful disagreement, and when it comes time to posting our analyses of PF, some will connect it to Pynchon and some, I gather, won't.  However, I am glad to see *you've* changed your mind and decided to "comment on Pale Fire itself, and of course, when I feel it insightful or useful, Pynchon," which, of course, is a far cry from your initial claims.

For what it's worth, maybe we can agree that further posts on this thread are done OFFLIST.  I think the list at large is pretty sick to death of this discussion.  I know I am.

With kind regards,

Tim Strzechowski

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030712/6886e9be/attachment.html>