Why Hawaii?

[Terrance]

Michael Joseph wrote:
> 
> Seems to me the hawaii scene is credible and meaningful for reasons noted,
> but none yet offered explains why it must be.

Credible? Why does it need to be credible? This is a Pynchon novel. It
ain't credible. Moreover, it ain't meaningful. What does it mean? What's
meaningful about it? 


 But if there is a quality of
> whimsy to it, it is a quality that sort of wafts through fiction.  May as
> well ask 'Why Otto?' How dreary otherwise.

It might be a bit more entertaining if we could figure out some of the
dialogue, but I suspect that's a futile exercise. This episode should
have stayed on the cutting room floor.