Spoiler's Reading IV pp 1-50

[Dave Monroe]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robin
Landseadel<robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Tore Rye Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Dave:
>>
>>> [...] maybe bust up the longer chapters into two hosting stints [...]
>>
>> How about lumping the shorter chapters into one hosting stint instead?
>> Chapters 3-5 and 19-21, for instance. IV is lighter than Pynchon's usual
>> fare, so perhaps the group read should be kept relatively short. We might
>> keep up a better momentum that way.
>
> Just so long as I get chapter four, one way or another, I'll be happy. Yes,
> it's only five pages long—you make an excellent point how a group reading of
> this book would be better served by grouping chapters and moving rather
> quickly through this novel.

Okay, I have what I think is a decent working breakdown of the novel
into hosting slots, with the rapidfire succession of Chs. 3, 4 and 5
forming the 3rd such unit (I lumped in the title/cover/blurb/u.s.w.
with Ch. 1), most of which are ca. 20-30 pgs. long.   So let me know
if that's okay, Tore.  We all know how long i can take simply getting
through any given paragraph, sentence, word, even, but ...

... but y'all have--rightly I think--wanted to get things a bit more
moving than usual, so ...

... so the question reamins, when to start?  I'll be happy to kick
things off, which I can start doing, if not today, tomorrow, with a
little trip out of town next weekend to give y'all a breather,  and we
could either start in on Ch. 1 (which, again, I'd be happy to coevr,
along with teh intro mat'l; I also wouldn't mind Ch. 8, but of course
will cede it to anyone interested), and am assuming it'll be my duty
to cover unclaimed/uncovered chs. [s claim 'n' cover 'em!]).  Or we
could wait 'til next week.  Or ...

My though though, is, why don't I get started as soon as possible, and
get the next host started either the 24th (which MIGHT actually be too
soon for me, I lose a day or two a week to doctors appointments alone
tehe days) or the 31st.  Or ...

Well, again, let me know ...

> On Aug 15, 2009, at 2:38 AM, Carvill John wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I would take a hosting slot. The last couple of Group Reads
>> I participated in here were not edifying experiences. I tried to get a group
>> read of GR going a few years back, and the results could not have been worse
>> unless, I dunno, an actual fatality had occurred. I hosted a segment of the
>> ATDTDA (aka 'Touching the Dog's Arse'), and was lucky enough to get one of
>> the best and most obviously significant passages of teh book to annotate,
>> and I put quite a lot of work into my posts, and it triggered virtually no
>> discussion at all, and I ended up feeling it had been a total waste of time.

I know well the situation, having been in it repeatedly here, but I
figure, so long as I learn something, get some work done, whatever,
I've not wasted my time.  If nothing else,

> Some of us feel as if we have to do these things. While I don't think the
> group read of Against the Day was 'a total waste of time' there were times
> when a lot of crickets could be heard, a lot of folks bailing, a lot of
> wheels spinning. What can I say? This stuff obviously isn't for everyone.

One problem in particular with AtD was length.  More so than ever,
fatigue seemed to have set in.  Ditto the 2nd (and/or most recent) M&D
read.  And nobody casts a silent paypal over a virtual room here quite
like I do.  But I learned a bunch, at very least, and I  constantly
find occasion to go back to my notes, I hope others do as well (and
I'm convinced academics have been cribbing from us) ...

On the other hand, i'm generally terrible at responding to others'
post, I know ...

> 'alice wellintown' obviously could have made useful contributions, but it's
> hard to tell from the passive aggressive quality of 'her' recent posts
> exactly what this poster is really up to.

Welcome to The P-List!

> I do not think Inherent Vice is crap. I do think that most of Inherent Vice
> is drawn from memory instead of research and that the author's memories are
> obviously [deliberately] warped. I also think that Inherent Vice owes a
> great deal to Raymond Chandler. Pynchon could not have found a more
> preterite form to express his thoughts than this psychedelic noir.

And we're at very least going to need someone around prepared to
comment as needed, so ...