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

[Carvill, John]

> The post was not intended as a swipe at you, John.

Well, since I'm used to receiving unprovoked attacks from you, I thought it was. Ok then.


<< Let me try again to make my point by going back to the post you quoted:

[have difficulty understanding how Pynchon could be writing works
informed by occultism while at the same time satirizing them as TWITS,
but willing to consider the possibility...]

If you are satirizing occultism, for example, *of course* your work is 
informed by the occult.  How could it possibly be otherwise?  The 
presence of occultism in a satire of the occult does not mean the author 
takes occultism seriously.>>

Well, Mike B will doubtless chip in soon. I guess what he meant was a bit more than that. Obviously you usually do have to include something in your text in order to satirise it. I think what Mike was hinting at was, for example, the way the themes and even *structure* of GR seems to be, in part, *informed by* the occult, yet Pynchon also seems to be satirising occultism. Thus what we regarded as a duality or, if you will, paradox.