[Paul Mackin]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "rich" <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
To: "Mark Kohut" <markekohut at yahoo.com>
Cc: <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>; "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re:


>I think Pynchon does the icky better than the human in general

What do we mean by "the human?"

human nature
human kindness
human strength
human weakness
human perversity
human endurance

Hard to label one book as more human than another without specifying.

Is Weissman more perverse than Vond?

Is Frenesi weaker than Jessica?

Is Zoyd more enduring than Slothrop?

Is Mexico tougher than Sasha?

Is anyone very kind?

P

>
> On 4/17/09, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Robin writes right on:
>> Don't forget the author's concern that humans were giving up their
>> human-ness and becoming more like machines. Entropy entered into this
>> equation. "V." was quite concerned with that theme, as I recall. 
>> Vineland's
>> concerned with it as well. And still, it's funny. "Vineland" is more like
>> the work of a "self-recognized human" than "Gravity's Rainbow." But 
>> there's
>> still the same—one might even say paranoid—themes.
>>
>> After GR, Pynchon began to write more of what "the human' WAS, rather 
>> than
>> what it wasn't. Agree?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>