For Bled - On Alice et al

[Matthew Cissell]

Dear Bled,

I may not agree with Alice or she with me, but I do try to keep it civil. Slandering people achieves very little. Like the old saying goes: If ya can't say soemthing nice...

By the way I don't think ill of you. Of course good Nietzschean that you are you can't possibly care for all that.

Best of luck with the inner voyages to the outer reaches. Have you ever tried a course of lithium salts to change neurochem levels prior to your voyages? Very different results whatever your theophantic substance.

ciao
MC Otis




________________________________
 From: Bled Welder <bledwelder at gmail.com>
To: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> 
Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: No novels from Roth anymore
 

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/20121111/89249092/attachment.html>