on The Family---for possible discussion re Vineland/TRP

[Paul Mackin]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Kohut" <markekohut at yahoo.com>
To: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: on The Family---for possible discussion re Vineland/TRP


>
> I just wanted to offer these kinda meta remarks on Ms. Macauley's words.
> that have occurred to me.
>
> Some metaphysicians say we cannot even conceive of the universe without
> having the concepts of space and time, at least.
>
> The human animal cannot survive without care by elders for a good part of 
> its
> earliest time in the world. Let's call those caretakers Family, whether 
> biological or
> otherwise.
>
> The greatest novelists cannot, analogously to metaphysicians,
> even conceive their vision without a concept of the human?
>
> Therefore of the human Family?
>
> I think Ms. Macaulay's remark might be part of the reason she is a minor 
> British novelist.

If families didn't exist, the shrink business would have to invent them.

P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:27:06 AM
> Subject: on The Family---for possible discussion re Vineland/TRP
>
>
> As to the family, I have never understood how that fits in with the other 
> ideals — or, indeed, why it should be an ideal at all. A group of closely 
> related persons living under one roof; it is a convenience, often a 
> necessity, sometimes a pleasure, sometimes the reverse; but who first 
> exalted it as admirable, an almost religious idea?
> — Rose Macaulay (1881-1958), British novelist
>
>
>
>