Pynchon's reply

[Dave Monroe]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Tore Rye Andersen <torerye at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Inexpensive Salvo!
>
> We SHOULD give Hollander credit, but do you really think we should do so
> by disparaging all the good work being done on this list? I see plenty of
> p-listers going out on a limb with various Grand Unified Theories of what
> Pynchon is *really* saying. Due to the structural restraints of the list
> we can't present our GUTs in fifty pages of consecutive prose, but have to
> point our puny little flashlight at one spot at a time, but taken together
> these many stroboscopic flashes do, in many instances, offer "an actual,
> positive interpretation" of Pynchon's work. If only you'd looked.

I'm the LAST person EVER to disparage the work done by the List, y'all
ought to know that by now.  But I've long since tired of Certain
Listers badmouthing Hollander @ every mention of his name--or
half-name, as the case may be, if even, and then some--by directing
subprime fusillades themselves at him, and, as often as not, at
peripheral positions of his, whether he considers them as such or not.
 Varo/Varro be damned, look up the damn names, and yr more likely than
not going to stumble across Something at ver least Interesting,
Suggestive, Informative, Relevant, Illuminating, possibly, even.  For
starters. Disinheritance, dynasties, cabals, conspiracies, economics,
politics, politicians, Kennedy, even; all mentioned/implied by name.
"Preapocalyptic, death-wishful, sensually fatigued, unprepared, a
little poignantly, for that abyss of civil war" indeed. Your results
may vary/Varo/Varro, but ...

Meanwhile, there are those who strongly imply to all-but-outright
claim that They are Those Who Know here, Robt. and (ahither) Terrance
(?) foremost amongst them, but they never quite cough up the the
answers, or even the questions, much less the goods, so ...

... so Hollander, at least, took the risk, a risk which I for one am
nowhere near being able to take, which is why we're able to bitch
about him so much here, he's actually said/written/published something
to bitch about ...

So that was my point.  Know well, Tore, that I appreciate each and
every effort, not in the least yr formidable own, made here, in the
name of P. or otherwise (simple civility and/or community bldg. being
noble endeavors as well), EXCEPT those made simply towards incivility
and community unbldg. (deconstruction being anothing thing entirely
...).  And I'm as always exasperated in particular by the Gang of, oh,
Three or Four (hear, Pete Puma there ...; though perhaps those numbers
are going down) running in to kick at the Hollander corpus.  Cut-rate
cannonade?  Reread Robt.'s recent insinuations about Things of Which
he Had Not Apparently Bothered Even to Ascertain the Facts, uh, About,
simply in order to discharge yet another bargain bin bombardment
against His Duditude.  This is neither constructive NOR
deconstructive--it's simply annoying, is all.  When you assume, you
make an ass out of, well, you, at any rate ...

So not to put anybody on teh spot here save those who really should be
putting money where their Mausers are ...