For Bled - On Alice et al

[David Morris]

Would that we could Internet intervene 4 Bled.

Like the name. Implies martyrdom.

Sorry all, for ignoring my own advice.

David Morris

On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Matthew Cissell wrote:

> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'bledwelder at gmail.com');>>
> *To:* alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'alicewellintown at gmail.com');>>
> *Cc:* pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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/d4169a34/attachment.html>