"the veracity of Pynchon's account"

[Malignd]

<<But the way you paraphrase it isn't the way it has
been said above:  "The problem with history is it
pretends to be true.">>

Saying history pretends to be true is saying it isn't
true is saying it's fictitious.

<<"pernicious" -- strange word choice that needs
explanation. It's only pernicious for the official
version of history.>>

Writing history off as fiction, blurring the lines
between history and fiction is pernicious -- harmful;
destructive.

<<<Pynchon wrote a novel.  That was his choice and,
one must assume, his goal was to write a good one.>

Why not let him say what he thinks about it instead of
your  speculation:>>

My "speculation" is axiomatic, unless one assumes
Pynchon depraved.

<<Paranoia is used in the book as a total increase of
cause and effect.  Again, see Lance W. Ozier's "The
Calculus of Transformation" on that, got it only in
German. If the world is explained by a total law of
"cause and  effect" it leads to stasis:>>

I've read the book, thanks.  I'll just limp along
without Herr Ozier's analysis. 

<<The purpose of calling history fiction isn't the
simple reversal that fiction could become the "true
history" -- whoever says this is indeed  a fool.>>

One may call history fiction for whatever purpose one
chooses.  It remains a fatuous and banal statement.

<< The problem isn't  that Pynchon had claimed to have
written "reliable history" -- he never did  so. He
claimed to have written fiction.>>

The "problem" has nothing to do with what Pynchon
claimed or didn't.  It has to do with what his
readers, many of them on this list, claim. 





		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com