Was Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[jbor]

on 10/6/03 5:40 AM, Michael Joseph wrote:

> The discussion was never about
> agreement. 

Indeed it is. I disagree with the approach which says that talking about the
"artist's process" is more valid than, or different from, talking about
"what the text means". (This is an expression of my opinion about the
methodological principles which were being advocated.) Rather than defending
the approach, or applying it to actual texts in order to substantiate it,
you simply jumped in and accused me of doing something which I wasn't doing,
which is what you continue to do now:

> The discussion was about why you chose to assert the presumed
> superiority of your position, and how you defended it. In fact, you have
> been content to repeat, essentially, that you are justified because you
> feel free to interpose your point of view. Your argument seems to be, my
> interpretation is that my interpretation is superior to V.'s
> interpretation because I say so, although it's also my initerpretation
> that no interpretation is actually superior. Well, if I disagree with the
> utility and force of this argument, at least I understand why you describe
> it as "empty semantics."

best