P defends V. ...

[Robin Landseadel]

On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:

> It is as far as I can tell a rather lonely we, a kind of a solo we.   
> I have never heard any critic use the term romance in the way alice  
> does and I have no idea what he is talking about.

All his writings on the topic claim a quality of exclusivity—"This is  
the only valid interpretation of the subject. Any variation  
invalidates the interpretation."

He who would be Alice is pointing to a limited number of American  
Authors who lived and worked in parts of the country that bear on the  
Pynchon Family history, Longfellow seems to part of this limited  
pantheon, as well as Melville. It appears to be a particular style of  
fantasy writing. I'm sure "Alice" could give us more useful  
information. Too bad he seems to be unable to write with any chrncy.

It's possible that what "Alice" really means this is:

http://www.rwanational.org/

That's what you get out of google when you type in "american romance  
writers genre."

> I think it is so unusual a usage as to constitute a kind of private  
> language.
> It is certainly not illuminating to me. What do you mean by calling  
> a novel a romance?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it  
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so  
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - -  
that's all."

> In a way, the competing interpretations  of Pynchon are like  
> interpretations of the Bible.  I think this may actually be  
> deliberate on Pynchon's part. Can any author invoke a world so  
> large  without creating true believers and heretics, sects and break  
> away sects?  And isn't  the creator the biggest heretic of all, who  
> must flout every rule that is made or bore the created  world and  
> its visitors to death?

Heresy itself is a recurrent theme in Pynchon, probably more important  
than the novels of Nora Roberts.

> On Aug 29, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robin Landseadel wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:16 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>
>>> . . . we, once again, fail to see what Robin sees between the
>>> lines.
>>
>> Is that the Royal "We"?
>