Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[jbor]

>> The problem I continue to have, and it's only a minor one, is that "the
>> artist's process" or "how the text works" seems to be being held up as
>> something finite and ultimate, when it's as much a matter of interpretation
>> as anything else is.

on 6/6/03 1:25 PM, Michael Joseph wrote:

> Perhaps not in the eyes of someone committed to the worldview that
> privileges "artist's process" and "how the text works." Since, as you
> point out, everything is a matter of interpretation,

Including the way a reader perceives "how the text works" or what "the
artist's process" was. It's not a question of privileging the "how" over the
"what" - the two aren't separable anyway - it's this idea that the "how" is
an objective fact while the "what" is a mere subjective response that I
disagree with.

> and thus a commitment
> to any particular dogma-including your own--requires a degree of
> irrationality, what entitles you to admonish Vincent for adopting an
> initial position no less rational than yours?

No admonition nor dogma involved. I accept that my interpretation is just
that: my interpretation.

>> I'm not saying it's wrong or not to share your responses to the various
>> texts, only that claiming that it's any different to or better than
>> discussions which focus on the semantic content - talking in terms of "what
>> the text means" - is specious.
> 
> Maybe, but the "Tu Quoque" argument applies again,

Of course it does. That's the point.

best