Incidental window dressing

[alice wellintown]

I'm gonna ignore you, Monte, cause your wasting my time. I'm going into
that Hefferan article. Read it.


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. ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130613/f254632e/attachment.html>