[Paul Mackin]

I forgot to list one important aspect of the human.

Human agency

In which books are characters more able to choose the direction of their 
lives?

P
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Mackin" <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re:


>
> ----- 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>