Was Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[Michael Joseph]

There was talk of Vineland, and Pale Fire.

Michael


On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Vincent A. Maeder wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>