meta [part the second]

[Joseph Tracy]

This statement demonstrates the trap of applying broad generalities  
to a few statements isolated from  a large and complex body of  
discourse, Robin clearly has a sophisticated sense of the literary  
and cultural influences and idea that play out in Pynchon's work.   
Robin offers a large contribution of original and well argued  
interpretation. I would like to see more P lister's putting out some  
original thinking and response in stead of playing it safe and  
arguing over narrow points  but giving little in the way of their own  
reading of the text.
The critical literature on Pynchon is all over the place. I think the  
useful role of such analysis is not to reveal the truth about a text,  
how it is structured or best understood, but to show the importance  
and reward of passionate intellectual investigation. If it inhibits  
one from developing an authentic reading of an author or text, it has  
become a kind of priesthood or orthodoxy rather than a tool of  
intellectual debate and refinement of thought.


On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:37 AM, David Morris wrote:

> The statements below demonstrate the trap of taking literature
> literally.  Never a good idea for one wishing to remain rational.
> Robin is not the only one currently playing here to fail this way.
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Robin Landseadel
> <robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:
>> T 'n A approaches the texts more as literature, I approach them  
>> more as revisionist history.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> There are many striking things about Gravity's Rainbow. For me the  
>> sense of the innate corruption at the center of the Second World  
>> War was particularly intense.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> Others—with every good reason—look on Pynchon's novels as  
>> literature, I tend to look at them more as history.