Was Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[Vincent A. Maeder]

Sorry I haven't had the time to speak up here.  It's a little nuts
around here and Terrance's potential Seussism about Google has my head
spinning with ideas.  In any event, this has been very educational for
me, but I have GOT to sit down and type up an application.  Now, are we
doing Vineland or COL49, people?

V.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:50 AM
To: jbor
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Was Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts


Thanks for your attention to the matter jbor. It's clear now that you
misunderstood my initial query, which V. sort of anticipated in his
Descartes question, didn't he, and rather than critique the larger
point,
you seem content to recast it as an ego-a-ego dispute, assume a wounded
tone, and drop the matter. I understand you disagree, but I'm not sure
you
understand what it is you're disagreeing with. I never advocated the
superiority of what you are calling an approach, but what I would call a
premise. I pointed out that, once one accepted your interpretive
premise,
one relinquished any rational basis for deprecating any other premise.
Never mind.

Michael



 > > 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
>
>
>