Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[jbor]

on 6/6/03 9:45 PM, Michael Joseph wrote:

> 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; 

No, and it wasn't an admonishment the first time around either.

> do you deny it? Aren't you offering your disagreement as a
> corrective to V.'s POV position?

Not at all. As an alternative. As my POV, or meta-POV.

> I don't think you've properly eluded the
> Tu Quoque problem.  According to V's POV, the "what" is *not* mere
> subjective response.

Are you sure about that? He spoke of the "emotional and psychological
impact" the text had on the reader. Perhaps it might be more productive if
you let him speak for himself, and you for yourself.

> According to your POV, all is mere subjective
> response. 

Yes. No facts, only interpretations.

> 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?

No, because I'm not operating under that type of "I'm right, you're wrong"
paradigm. I can accept that conflicting POVs co-exist in the world; in fact,
that's one of the bases of my own POV.

> Little matter of crisis of integrity.
> (Some catch that Catch 22 ...)

Yes, that is indeed something which your argument and interlocutory mode
remind me of too.
 
>>>> 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.

That's OK. If that's his understanding (i.e. interpretation) of the reading
process, that's fine too. It wouldn't be an uncommon POV on the topic,
though my understanding (i.e. interpretation) of it differs, as I've said.

Once we've moved out of the realm of empty semantics, however, which is
certainly where you're at your cockiest, and into the tin tacks of
responding to an actual text - say, in regard to the subject header (and
that's the purpose of this venue in a nutshell), one of Pynchon's - which is
something that you do seem quite loath to do - then that's when your attack
finally stumbles off feebly and collapses into the ditch. It's impossible to
offer a non-interpretive "analysis" of a text. The only way one could do
that would be by copying the whole thing out exactly as is, and that's a
pretty pointless exercise. (Even cutting and pasting and reordering verbatim
fragments of it is an interpretive act; even a "random" reassembly of
text/s, as per Surrealism, is a deliberate modus operandi chosen by the
subject.) Any "starting-point", any "intervention", any foregrounding of
what one perceives as "significant" or "trivial", any response whatsoever,
*is* interpretive. And that would include all the meta-interpretive bombast
which you seem so fond of as well, the implicit "text" under notice there
being "interpretation" itself.

But, as I've said, there's actually nothing wrong in the practice of it at
all. It's what we all do all the time. Setting up "interpretation" as
something improper or illegitimate is a furphy. In reading and discussing
Pynchon's texts I'm quite happy to comment on what I think the text means,
on how I see meaning/s being constructed (i.e. "how the text works"), and
even to agree or disagree with those meanings or to apply them to
circumstances and experiences which are "beyond" the text, as it were. And
I'm quite happy to consider someone else's comments and responses on any or
all of these topics, and to agree or disagree with them as well. And I can
certainly countenance and respect the fact that some people sincerely
believe that they are in possession of the ultimate and absolute truth,
about a particular text or section of text, about the world "circa 2003", or
about the universe and all of creation. I don't have a problem with any of
that: it doesn't mean I need to agree with them, however.

best

> 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.)