Boycott the Pale Fire discussion

[joeallonby]

on 7/11/03 4:00 AM, Eulenspiegel7646 at aol.com at Eulenspiegel7646 at aol.com
wrote:

In a message dated 7/9/2003 9:36:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
quail at libyrinth.com writes:


To believe that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to
Pynchon in order to please a vocal minority is misguided.




The "minority" might be vocal, but the vast majority are just boycotting the
PF reading, which, I reiterate, does not belong on this list.  Those saying
there is no need to relate the PF reading to Pynchon are wrong, just like
Republicans who insist that the missing WMDs have no bearing on the invasion
& destruction of Iraq.
If you can't make a case for the relevance of a work by Nabokov being
formally read & discussed on this Pynchon-list, beyond the possibility that
the young Tom Pynchon may or may not have audited or taken his class at
Cornell (which, in itself, does not rate a reading), you do not have a case
for a reading of PF.
I maintain that there is no reason to have a formal discussion of Pale Fire
on the Pynchon List.  I remember a few years ago, some twits wanted to have
a reading & discussion of Something by David Foster Wallace.  It died a
deserved death.  
There is a Nabokov List.  It is a moderated list.  What a shame!  Maybe the
lack of opportunity to flame someone who disagrees with them is too hard for
them to bear.  If they really are interested in Pale Fire, let them go to
the Nabokov List.  No, they are only interested in having their little
circle-jerk.
Go to it!  I for one will take no part in this folly.  I enjoy using my
delete key.  


This is a bit over the top. One of the reasons why I subscribed to the
P-list as one of my first acts upon having an internet connection in my home
was to connect with people with a similar interest which can be expanded to
include new though related experiences. I seem to recall some fairly
involved discussions of Melville, Gibson, DeLillo, and Haruki Murakami on
this list. Pale Fire has been referred to enough times to grant  reading it
a space on my lengthy agenda. A group read would be most helpful. How could
it not be appropriate for a Pynchon related list when it is referred to so
often on said list? I don't consider it to be folly. It's just a tangent.
Ignore it if you like.

Peace,
Joe



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030713/4fb6e094/attachment.html>