Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[Michael Joseph]

Ok, Jbor, so, I say . . .

> > 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,

and then you say . . .

> 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 then I say ...

> > 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?
>
and then you say . . .

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

But, now I leap to my feet and say, your disagreement ("it's this idea
that the "how" is an objective fact while the "what" is a mere subjective
response that I disagree with") is the very admonition to which I am
referring; do you deny it? Aren't you offering your disagreement as a
corrective to V.'s POV position? I don't think you've properly eluded the
Tu Quoque problem.  According to V's POV, the "what" is *not* mere
subjective response. According to your POV, all is mere subjective
response. But, having asserted that, haven't you forfeited the right to
criticize V's POV or any POV by denying any basis for that rigt in an
objective, rationalist, standard? Little matter of crisis of integrity.
(Some catch that Catch 22 ...)


> >> 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.
>
>From which you are shrinking, young son! You do not believe in the
solidity of the "what," and therefore deny to V. his belief. You cannot
get V. to sign on to the Tu Quoque argument and relinquish his belief,
Jbor, because he does not meet the preconditions. *He* has not agreed that
all is mere interpretation. This is your crisis of integrity and you can't
dodge it by shifting it onto V. (whom, I hope you would agree, already has
a heck of a lot on his plate.)

Michael