Headcount Update #4,367

[joeallonby]

OK, let's do it. I should have read Pale Fire by now anyway.

Joe


on 6/12/03 11:30 PM, Tim Strzechowski at dedalus204 at attbi.com wrote:

> I think it would be an excellent testament to the scholarship and
> professionalism of this list (yes, it can be professional when it wants to
> be!) to be able to pull off a simul-read with _Pale Fire_ and _Vineland_.
> I'd planned to reread PF during its group read anyways, and I envisioned two
> group readings going on at the same time, with listers dipping back and
> forth amongst the various threaded discussions of both books.  I think the
> possibilities are great!
> 
> Truth be told, I have no time to handle anything for the PF read (what with
> a three-week-old baby in the house, minimal sleep, tee-ball games for my
> six-yr-old, and a _Vineland_ read to prep for).  I was sort of assuming the
> PF reading would handle itself (since yesterday, it seemed so many people
> wanted to do it).
> 
> I think the organization of the _Pale Fire_ reading should go to those who
> expressed an interest in doing so (Morris, Quail, cfa, slothenvypride, et
> al).  If it goes, I'll be lurking and piping in as I see fit.  In the
> meantime, I'm looking forward to VLVL2.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pynchonoid" <pynchonoid at yahoo.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Headcount Update #4,367
> 
> 
>> It could be quite stimulating to have a sub-group
>> talking Pale Fire and Pynchon along with a Vineland
>> reading.  Everybody writing essays and reporting out
>> the results of their readings, comparing and
>> contrasting, debating, learning together,-- it could
>> be great.  Pynchon-L already sustains multiple
>> discussion threads, all the time, so it's not as if
>> the larger group doesn't know how to pursue
>> distinct-but-compatible interests. Invite the
>> Nabokov-L folks in, too, why not.
>> 
> 
> 
>