rubrics (I like that word), wrecking crews and hugfests

[Joseph Tracy]

Funny how you bounce this stuff back and forth and sometimes  end up  
more on the same page than you figured.


On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:03 PM, David Morris wrote:

> I have no knowledge of Pynchon's beliefs, or unbelief's.  As has been
> repeatedly stated here by numerous readers, one tends to see Pynchon's
> texts almost as mirrors of one's own perspective because he includes
> so many possibilities.
I wonder what are the commonalities as regards what attracts readers  
to Pynchon, if there are such. Certainly the fact that he includes so  
many possibilities is a big factor for me.  It seems like all these  
"possibilities" inherent in language,  history, fiction, myth,  
comedy, etc., are being arranged to trigger a kind of scrying on the  
part of the reader. Not that it is just a game board, but that it is  
fiction and language imagined as a going more than one way. Stories  
are being told by the writer but stories are also being actively  
anticipated and invited to be told by the reader.



> So I laugh a bit when someone here thinks
> Pynchon is an adept or disciple at any particular (or even general)
> system.  But then that mirrors my perspective as an agnostic.
>
> But belief does "work like that."  Believing is seeing, participating
> and witnessing.  I've done my share, and still do from time to time.
> Personally I like the wisdom/divination of the I Ching.  But I think
> that's because, like so many systems it is very open-ended, and one
> gets what one brings into it,  though I do allow for some possibility
> of extra-whatever interaction.
>
> Peace,
> David Morris
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Robin Landseadel
> <robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Believer? Doesn't really work like that. Participant? Sure, been  
>> there, done that, doing something else right now. I'm enough of a  
>> participant-witness to be able use Occam's Razor and figure that  
>> if it quacks like a duck . . .