P defends V. ...

[alice wellintown]

you could read hawthorne's prefaces, i posted them--he defines the
ameican romance in each preface--the one to hsg is the best. you could
read that list from twain i posted. you could read chase. i posted and
monroe posted from chase. you could read the stuff i posted from on
native ground or from edmunnd wilson, on romance. you could read the
book on teaching pynchon, wherein the author discusses chase. you
could take a course in american literatre, might help you understand
pynchon. but you prefer not to. you could read bartleby. btw, my hands
and my mind are like bartelby's eyes. my eyes too, soon will be
miltonic, but i doubt its just from reading...my dad has bad eyes too,
but then, he reads as much as me...so only He who walks the waves
knows and since i'm lonely, i'm goin out there now to try to catch a
few lefts.

seeya

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> 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.  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?
>
>  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?
>
> 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"?
>
>