Deadfall

[David Morris]

On 7/24/07, Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Pynchon is not James Joyce.  I don't believe that AtD needs to be decoded or interpreted or that there is any underlying scheme.  It's all there in the text and stands without support from Crowleyites, Hanged Men (which I used as a bookmark before even starting the thing) or Zetamaniacs.

Lord know what you mean by "it's all there in the text," but how you
can unequivocably say there's no "underlying scheme" is truly
remarkable.  Somehow you've got it figured that "it's all there in the
text" which then equals no "underlying scheme?"  I think it's pretty
clear from the previous segment featuring the "guardians of the
temple" that there are most definitely "underlying schemes,"
or what I'd call partially hidden deep refferences.  AtD wouldn't be
Pynchon without at least a hefty dose of such.

And what any of this has to do with the term "deadfall" (which you've
found in Barbary Coast, but is too obscure to be found in any
dictionary I've access to) is beyond me also.  Did anyone propose it
had occult meanings?

And it sure would've been nice if you'd pointed out where in your
online source it was to be found.

David Morris

> The term "Deadfall" is used often in The Barbary Coast by Herbert Asbury.  I have a 1933 first edition but it's available at: http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hbtbcidx.htm