Accounts secular and karmic

[bandwraith at aol.com]

Succintly put. For my money, however, Bartleby probably takes himself a little too seriously. On the other hand, he doesn't really seem like a character at all, more like an algorithm- blades of grass, indeed. As for the Pynch, knowledge that he's getting his advance and copping his percentage, is as good a defense as any against taking him too seriously. And I don't think he'd take any offense at that, on the way to the bank.



-----Original Message-----
From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Accounts secular and karmic



The difference is clearly defined in several Pynchon essays,  and is, of course, a major theme in all of his novels. Although some readers will never quite get it because they refuse to accept the author's position, even when he spells it out for them in plain words,  a good place to start is with Pynchon's essay on Sloth. 
In the essay the author examines Melville's Bartleby and explains that the scrivener's sin against the economy was secular, but the sin of the lawyer against Bartleby, even if the soul is little more than a few blades of grass in the Tombs, is Karmic. 
 




On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

What's the difference, I'd like to know?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130414/c83b4ce7/attachment.html>