does AtD stone world?

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

So, like Keith posts:

       On Jul 10, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Dave Monroe wrote:

       It's like complaining that Jesus ain't no God.
-----------------------------------------------

       This line of thought could bring some clarity to the various  
       viewpoints re: the GR/AtD relationship.

       Is AtD

       (a) homoousian   (of same substance and essence)
       (b) homoiousian  (of similar, but not identical substance/essence)
       (c) homoian      (similar but distinctly inferior)
       or
       (d) heteroousian (different substance/essence)

       vis-à-vis GR?

With AtD, most everything is swimming under the surface. GR wears its poetry
on its sleeve, AtD constantly lulls you into thinking you're in a more prosaic
narrative, while in fact many more polyphonic threads are woven into this 
composition. I suspect that a surface reading of AtD would result in 
dissapointment, a deep reading affords a particular type of amazement not
possible in [the ultimately nihilistic] Gravity's Rainbow. There is more hope 
[for the future] and faith [in people] in Pynchon's writings after Gravity's 
Rainbow. As OBA points out in "Slow Learner", the motivations of characters 
ultimately should do more to drive a story than some hyped-up metaphor, and 
somehow the folks in AtD are a bit more 'real' [whatever the hell that means] 
than the folks in GR. I'd point to a density of storytelling and description in 
AtD greater than that of GR. AtD includes the set of GR (and V., and 
49. . . .), but is greater than the set of GR. They are made of the same 
substance, but there's more going on in AtD.