No novels from Roth anymore

[Bled Welder]

Speaking of which, Bailey, whatever your fucking name is, you flipperous
bubblebutt, are you going to speak again now, as I wish, or do I have to
swim down to Florida and extract it from you?


On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Bled Welder <bledwelder at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excuse me for falling asleep for fifteen minutes your majesty,  I sleep
> little anymore.
>
> I doubt Matthew was talking about square boxes.
>
> Perhaps perfect hexagons, and pentagons.  Yes we can see into the text.
>  We can read, you mothership goddess.  You gave birth to us, and here we
> are.
>
> We don't need no fucking boxes.  I want fucking hexagons.  I want to eat
> fucking hexagons.  I am fucking hungry over here on this planet!
>
> I can't wait to one day give birth to you, you deserve life, you Alice in
> Wonderland wonderhexafuckal.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM, alice wellintown <
> alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So what have we got after an impressionist reader, a reader who puts
>> emphasis on the reader and the reading of a text, is disabused of his
>> reading of the film-like squares on the page by the formalist, after
>> the formalist and impressionist agree that the squares on the page are
>> a printing convention?  Is the reading without value? Is it wrong? A
>> misreading? A strong misreading? Why put so much weight on an a fact?
>> So the formailst critic points to the fact that the squares are a
>> convention and therefore not to be read as any part of the use of film
>> by the author. Why not put equal weight on the senstivity the
>> impressionist reader has to verbal naunce, to ambiguity, to the use of
>> graphics in modern--to postmodern texts, to the intellectual and
>> emotional self-awareness that admits that the fact, the convention
>> explains the use of the squares? Why not give weight to other elements
>> of the reading? Here we often read, from MB, to give a recent example,
>> a reading that admits to limited critical knowledge but is obviously
>> shaped by a deeply human personality. Is not a deeply humane
>> personality more important to reading a work of fiction than knowledge
>> of printing conventions? Is not knowledge of film, of psychology,
>> philosophy, math, science...at least as important as knowledge of
>> printing conventions when reading GR? So what if the facts argue
>> against the reading; a charitable reading, a common enough practice in
>> other disciplines, is all that is required to enrich one's own
>> reading.
>>
>> Itz a shame to turn an author's work into a spectator sport where
>> critics argue inside the industry and readers sit in the nosebleeders
>> like so many Oedipas wandering round in Yo-Yo-land, looking into black
>> boxes and holding the towel for the padantic Driblets.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121111/a391730d/attachment.html>