Fwd: Not really Pynchon but starts with Lot 49...

[Mark Kohut]

I have never really wanted to read it because I want books, no matter
how WHATEVER [postmodern, very modern, linguistically playful and
rich, allusive as Pynchon; nothing like these] that are still about
THE WORLD, ultimately.....which Pynchon's work is...deeply, we know.

Further searching leads me to learn that lots of commentators link
TNOTR's mysteries as akin to the mystery end of Lot 49...and other
such works...and it seems that a 1990 issue of Pynchon Notes might
elaborate on Eco's allusive borrowing from Lot 49, maybe.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:53 AM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think so, too: massively overrated. (But then, I never read more than 5
> pages of it.)
>
> 2015-04-09 16:49 GMT+02:00 David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Eco's TNOTR is so over-rated.  It is just a pile-on of conspiracies that
>> have been cooked up by others before him.  Questionable sources is just
>> standard fare, not an allusion to COL49, IMHO.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the first time, I opened THE NAME OF THE ROSE. In English,
>>> 1983 or 1984 pubbed.
>>>
>>> I know one meme about it---one reason I never aggressively went to
>>> read it, pace fans, refuting is allowed---is ECO's line that IT--All
>>> Books?--are mead out of other books and he mixes historical
>>> reality and lotsa historical 'imagination" in this mystery.
>>>
>>> So, it begins with the story of a medieval manuscript, 14th Century,
>>> discovered first in the 18th Century and now rediscovered---"third in
>>> chronological order" sez the narrator---which narrator
>>> then finds another manuscript that seems to be a kind of source and
>>> the first one is no longer in the monastery library and is suspected
>>> now to be a forgery......
>>>
>>> THIS is a conceptual allusion to the Crying of Lot 49s internal work,
>>> no?...Or is this just generic...
>>> a whole historical meme about old manuscripts?....
>>>
>>> I cannot be the only one who has asked about this hugely-read work,
>>> right? yet I cannot easily find a
>>> link on the interwebs.
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l