Someone (else) speak on Inherent Vice..?

[Mark Kohut]

Laura, laura and rich, rich and grladams, grladams and alice, alice:

It is a sportello into'on his major works...it is a self-portrait, self-mocking and witty of an author finding his themes in a time and a place......

More minor than most, with those flaws some of you have pointed out----but so fine, as the Chiffons are always singing....

--- On Tue, 1/5/10, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Someone (else) speak on Inherent Vice..?
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 1:24 PM
> I'll agree that the book's worth
> reading for the glimpse it gives into the time and place the
> author lived in while writing GR, but saying that IV
> provides additional contexts for a reread of GR, COL49 and
> ATD seems a little overblown.  Substitute "pale echoes
> of" for "additional contexts in which to read" and I'm
> completely on board.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> 
> >
> >Funny, I thought the core topic of the book was the
> attempt to  
> >remember what life was like at Manhattan—excuse
> me—Gordita Beach, way  
> >back in 1970. I detect the author having a lot of fun
> tussling with  
> >narratorial authority, always leading to thoughts like
> "It's a wonder  
> >I can remember anything at all." Lots of quotidian 1970
> Los Angeles at  
> >the core of this remembrance of things past Rosecrans,
> with all sorts  
> >of cannabis flavored madeleines and other stoned
> diversions scattered  
> >along the way, leading to the usual cul-de-sacs and red
> herrings we  
> >all have learned to love so much over here at the
> P-list. This is a  
> >glimpse into those things that the author is most
> familiar with, shit  
> >he didn't have to look up, encapsulating the time and
> place the author  
> >lived in during the time he wrote the book that made
> him famous. In  
> >the process we are given additional contexts in which
> to read  
> >Gravity's Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49, not to
> mention the Noir- 
> >laden Against the Day.
> >
> >On Jan 5, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Robert Mahnke wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Jill,
> >>
> >> Could you say more about what you mean by your
> first sentence?
> >>
> >> RPM
> >
> >> On 1/4/10, grladams at teleport.com
> <grladams at teleport.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> OK, what I find so disappointing in IV is the lack
> of deep artful  
> >> writing
> >> about the core topic of the book, which I presume
> to be a  
> >> revolutionary act
> >> of reversing the flow of money. It's been a topic
> before, reversals or
> >> potentials of reversal-- from wistful missed
> opportunities of  
> >> Tesla's free
> >> energy, reversal of time in photography, etc, and
> IV coulda been a
> >> contender.. but it aint. What I did like about IV
> was the story of
> >> Sportello's and Bjornsen's professional paths
> beginning at conflicting
> >> outlooks on the world, and then how by the end
> there's Sportello  
> >> kind of
> >> being exposed, willingly? by Bjornsen, in a good
> wake up and smell the
> >> coffee kind of way, to dangers that whether we
> agree or not, whether  
> >> we
> >> like it or not, bring about a concretization that
> the 60's or the  
> >> old ways,
> >> are over.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >>
> >> Original Message:
> >> -----------------
> >> From: Mark Kohut markekohut at yahoo.com
> >> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:23:13 -0800 (PST)
> >> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >> Subject: Someone (else) speak on Inherent Vice..?
> >
> 
>