Vineland underrated

[Carvill John]

On 26 Sep 2003 16:35:06  "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta@[omitted]> wrote:

>>From: "Carvill John" <johncarvill@[omitted]>
>>
>>As to the 1984 introduction, "fuzzy-brained writing"? I'm afraid your 
>>response to Otto's claim that Pynchon's overt political statements get 
>>dismissed as "shitty writing" only serves to illustrate his point.

>I think your perception here has no basis in anything but your own 
>prejudices.  There was a long and specific discussion on this list about 
>what many found to be slippery linkages of language and logic which might 
>be described as "fuzzy-logic" in the 1984 intro.  Some concluded that 
>Pynchon was trying to be slippery.  Others thought it just "shitty 
>writing.”  And some thought it was about the Homeland security Act.  But 
>there was by no means a political litmus-test demonstrated by the opinions 
>expressed about the essay.

Yeah, well. I'm new to the list so I wasn't privy to the specifics of the 
earlier discussion. But if you read the 1984 intro and the sloth essay and 
could still calim some level of ambiguity vis a vis Pynchon's views on the 
Reagan years (clue: fascism) then your level of delusion is ineluctable. 
With respect, I think *your* perception has no basis in anything but your 
own, Pynchon/Vineland -incompatible, prejudices. Maybe you should switch to 
Pynchon's rumoured upcoming fellow Simpsons guest star Mr Clancy, where the 
overt political bias is of a sort which should present you no problems.

Cheers

John

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month 
(depending on the local service providers in your area).  
https://broadband.msn.com