Re: IVIV (15) 273—7000 Romaine, Los Angeles 38

[Joseph Tracy]

You have neither offered a critique nor an alternate interpretation.  
Only more piss. You never respond to textual argument and rarely  
offer it except as scant preface to overblown interpretations of  
characters you don't like. You then claim Pynchon doesn't like the  
character the same way you don't with no response to those who pose  
textual evidence for other readings. How is this not reader- 
response   projection?

Here's a little history lesson for you, and some reminders from the  
text. IF RFK had not been killed the FFF 's ( fascists for freedom- 
Nixon Reagan Bush) candidate Dick Nixon would probably have been  
beaten. Howard Hughes was a major Nixon supporter.  Nixon is at the  
centre of the Golden Fang organization( that's why they had those  
crateloads of Nixon Bucks. The CIA , the military industries and  
Howard Hughes are also tied to the Fang( dentistry as extractive  
industry, the mob behind the mob, Vegas, Mickeys Vegas real real  
estate deal that was really HH's historic deal) .  The central story  
is about killers for hire working in coordination with police FBI  
Fang , nixon supporters( vigilant ) and high levels of state office  
who killed someone who might have prevented Ron Reagan from getting  
elected.  So the question prevents itself to this reader- who was  
killed that might have prevented Dick Nixon from getting elected? Is  
that explicit enough for you ?
On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:19 PM, alice wellintown wrote:

> If you could construct a reading from IV that would be another matter,
> but you are now slapping together several huge conspiracy theories and
> dozens of conspiracy texts to make your reading intelligable. That's
> projecting a reader-response world onto the text. The fact that the
> event threads that you are stitching together  happened in California
> and Washington and Nevada at around the time that, either the author
> lived close by or one of the conspiracy figures did, and so on,  is
> not anyhting explicit. If it is implicit, you have not argued that
> convincingly. Not to me or those who find reader-response political
> conspiracy readings of Pynchon a poor approach, but to anyone who has
> a bit of critical rigor.  I suspect you are not convinced of your own
> strong misreading and that is why you are so keen to silence my
> critique of it; that might slit this thin spun thread and allow the
> fates to unwind a muted posthorn.
>
>
>
> 2009/11/22 Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>:
>> I've got a swell idea—you stick to looking for Inherent Vice's  
>> connections
>> with "The Great American Literary Tradition" and I'll stick to  
>> looking for
>> connections to the time and place where the book is set. There's  
>> always
>> political content in Pynchon's books that is relevant to both the  
>> specific
>> time and place where the novels are set and also to the time when  
>> the novel
>> is published. Every time anyone comes up with political threads in  
>> Pynchon
>> that connect to modern day spying, clandestine operations and the  
>> political
>> food chain as it now stands, you respond like you just did. I have  
>> no clue
>> as to what you motive is, but you started out by calling the book  
>> "crap" and
>> you haven't let up since. The threads pointing to Howard Hughes are
>> explicitly stated in Inherent Vice. The directions you're  
>> attempting to lead
>> us aren't.