Incidental window dressing

[Joe Allonby]

...but I really like all that stuff about rockets and space/time.


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.