Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[Vincent A. Maeder]

>> 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<

At this point, I've lost any sense of a coherent POV what with all this
what is what and how is how talk... All I can say is that all writing
contains a POV, and the goal of that writing is to create a coherent POV
present in nonfiction or essayist literature.

So, my question, again, is not what is the Author saying, rather what
did he write that caused you to have that emotional and psychological
response? What makes this writing resonate with you?  What coheres the
POV for you?  What breaks the POV for you?  Does that break in POV
change the emotional and psychological reaction?  In what manner?  Does
this progress the story?  Is the piece effectively bringing about a
coherent POV?  An understandable plot?  A consistent character?

What, in other words, in the artistic process has caused your
perceptions?  Your emotional and psychological response?

Yes, I must get back to my plate having now blown several hours of
productivity, though this is only my perception borne by the perception
of that little, green piece of perforated paper I receive every other
Friday...

V.