Incidental window dressing

[Monte Davis]

AW> In fact, the novels frustrate and playfully upset our attempts to read
them with all that science and theory. 

 

Ummm. as you explicitly don't bring "all that science and theory" to the
reading, how do you know that? Is there a "readings frustrated and playfully
upset" scoreboard somewhere that you consult?

 

What you're really saying is "I can't be bothered to try because of my a
priori certainty that it's a useless approach, but if one were to try it
would assuredly fail; Q.E.D."

 

That doesn't rise even to the level of sophistry.       

 

 

From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of alice wellintown
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:22 PM
To: pynchon -l
Subject: Incidental window dressing

 

I didn't use this phrase, but I stand by the assertion that P's use of
science, and lots of other stuff,  is not essential, not all that important
to any of his works. The absurd use of erudition is another standard element
of the genre he prefers, the anatomy or mennipean satire. Do we really need
to know all that stuff rockets or space-time when reading a work like GR or
AGTD? Nope. In fact, the novels frustrate and playfully upset our attempts
to read them with all that science and theory. 

 

Do you watch LOST? Same shit P does, but on TV. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130613/858097cf/attachment.html>