unreliable? in Vineland, nights in white satin ...

[Michael Joseph]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Tim Strzechowski wrote:

> >  I wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The diction does change.  In GR, of course, it's more pronounced.  In
> > > _Vineland_ it's not.  I think given the themes, social commentary, and
> > > overall mood of _Vineland_ there's a reason for that seamlessness
> between
> > > the formal and informal.  But it's definitely there.
> >
> > To which Michael Joseph added:
> >
> > Obviously, and I haven't seen a serious argument to the contrary, have
> > you? (Although, what is meant by "seamlessness"? If it is the putative
> > elegant dovetailing of points of view, think we need to consider the
> > "seam" again, rather than pretend we are giving Pynchon the benefit of the
> > doubt.)
>
> My Real-Time response:
>
> I was merely responding to jbor's contention that "I think you'll find that
> the diction [in Vineland] doesn't change all that much" in the previous
> post, is all.  And my use of the word "seamlessness" seems to have set-off
> not a few posters; I was striving for a word to convey the ease with which
> Pynchon shifts from the formal to the informal to the formal in his writing,
> sometimes within the same sentence.  Again, that's all.  If a better word
> exists to describe that "seamlessness," I'm all ears (or, in this
> cyber-context, eyes).
>
To which MJ adds, in the hope of greater clarification,

I was writing out of a sense of apprehension that "ease" would erase
disjunction, that Pynchon's repititions, which lead us to expect and
accept the disjunctions, would also become invisible, that we would lose
the sense of them as creative acts as well as repetitions. I wasn't
tweaking you for your choice of terms. I wanted to focus attention on
Pynchon's language, Tim, not on yours.


> I said:
> >
> > > I'm convinced we might do justice to this thread at this point to move
> away
> > > from this minor sticking point (for, in essence, we are in agreement
> here)
> > > and consider what Terrance has to offer regarding "privilege."
>
> to which MJ responded:
>
> > >
> > My preference for analysis is the microstructure of Pynchon's sentences,
> > and I hopse this approach will be privileged in the group read.
> >
>
> The Real Me:
>
> Personally, I think one of the merits of a group reading of any literary
> work is the various and sundry perspectives that come from it based on the
> readership.  The Marxists, the Freudians, the New Critics, the Feminists,
> the Zen-buddhist-existentia-transcendental neo-punk Hippies -- hell, we
> *all* have something to add to the discussion (even slothenvypride one day,
> I'd imagine), so far be it for me to exclude anyone's substantive
> contribution to this discussion.
>

Sure.

> One of the reasons why I think this thread is going quite thus far.
>
> Tim (Doctor Timmy)
>
>
>
>
>
>