VLVL Prairie and DL

[jbor]

>> It seems odd that so much interpretative loading would be assumed here
>> while
>> the narrator's statement that "DL had to stare down at her feet, like an
>> amateur tap dancer" is rudely rejected as "ambiguous".
> 
> Why "rudely rejected"? It's the ambiguity (based on Pynchon's deliberate
> choice of "temporised") that's being rejected by readers who go for a
> simplistic reading, listing quotations taken out of context to make them fit
> a preordained, judgemental conclusion.

What is it exactly that you're saying is ambiguous about "DL had to stare
down at her feet, like an amateur tap dancer"?

And, as far as the passage at 101.2-8 goes, there's no ambiguity that I can
see. The text says: "DL temporized." And then it shows us how she
"temporized", and how Prairie understood what she was doing, i.e. not
telling her anything. But if you find the bit in the text which shows DL
finally finding the right time to tell Prairie the true story about why
Frenesi left by all means point it out.

And by the way, I don't get this argument which says that "ambiguity"
automatically rules out what is, after all, a literal interpretation of the
text. Maybe you could explain how that works again?

best