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

[alice wellintown]

Nonsense. I have consistantly argued from the text under
consideration. I have supported my readings with textual evidence. I
have used the primary source liberally and secondary sources
judiciously. That you don't agree with me, is another matter. Piss
Piss. The Peeee List is mostly Piss. That the red pages may jump out
to certain readers is not all reader-response, however, for the texts
do satarize targets of American late capitalism---they are about
preterite workers and how they flip and flop about in the bottomless
pits under the grinning faces of robber barrons; the characters are
bartleby the scriveners haunting the Tombs of postmodern iron heels
and jungles.


2009/11/22 Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>:
> 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.
>
>