Editing Pynchon?

[Carvill, John]

I can't speak for Otto, but what I was saying was that ATD is relatively
recent, and huge, and it would not be surprising, to say the least, if
it subsequently proved that there are some structural elements which at
this point we do not fully understand. This is Pynchon, after all. 

If someone were to 'explain' this structure, as you rather snidely
suggest, then that would not necessarily mean that all parts of the book
are essential: it could be that there are whole sections whose inclusion
or omission would have no impact on that structure. 

But at this stage, we don't know, so at this stage it would be foolish
and potentially damaging to 'edit' out some of the 'unnecesary'
passages. So the idea that someone can say what needs to be edited is
absurd.

Those who don't know, don't know.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
Behalf Of Ray Easton
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:22 PM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Editing Pynchon?

Otto wrote:
> As long as nobody has explained this "huge complex structure" to me
> sufficiently (well, of course I've got my own ideas but I could be
> wrong) I see all parts & characters as "essential".
>
>   
So you take the apparent inability of anyone to explain this structure 
"sufficiently" as evidence that there is some such explanation?

Were someone to explain this structure "sufficiently," wouldn't that 
itself be evidence that all parts & characters are essential?  

On the other hand, if it's not a "huge complex structure," but rather  a

"bloated incoherent mess," then no such explanation can ever be
provided.

Ray