copacetic susidiary

[Terrance]

Michael Joseph wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Terrance wrote:
> 
> > A wholly-owned subsidiary is a subsidiary which is owned entirely by its
> > holding company.  The suggestion that Ralph's family business is a front
> > company for the Catholic Church is not supported by the text.
> >
> I wonder if the Church can be as easily dismissed as you suggest, T.

What have you got? 


> 
> > Again, not picking on V. here, but what's in the text is being ignored.
> 
> V.? Speaking of close reading! V's doing the Pale Fire commentary this
> week. I'm the guy you're not picking on!

Right. I knew that. 


> 
> > Pynchon's text is entirely irrelevant to most of these critical readings
> > of ... other texts. I mean, I really like Eddins, but how the hell can
> > he write a a 400 page book on Pynchon's four novels and not get the
> > names of characters straight? How in the world can a critic sit down and
> > write an entire book (nearly 600 pages) on one novel (GR) and not get
> > the family trees right. [...]
> 
> Okay, point taken. But here's how this happens. Pynchon is not Dickens.
> Pynchon is working in abstractions, and abstracting from abstractions.
> It's impossible and even perhaps unforgivable for a reader not to get lost
> following the rising and crossing currents of thought in a Pynchon text,
> and ideally in one's own rising responses. Of course, getting names,
> family trees, right matters, and ought to be sorted out before
> publication. These are errors, but they are not inexplicable, nor are they
> mortal.

Are they manifestations of Sloth?