M&D - Chapter 21 - Mason&Rebekah

[Jerome Park]

I'm reading it while listening to Sun Ra 100 years in and it it feels right
now....

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/22/314593139/saturn-still-swings-celebrating-sun-ra-at-100

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e67IqMoz4M&noredirect=1

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:25 PM, David Ewers <dsewers at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm reading something similar, so you're probably reading it wrong.  But
> if there are enough of us...
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2015, at 5:55 PM Jolly good day we are having, Jerome Park
> wrote:
>
>
> but if days are reclaimable, if Newton's machine may be jammed yet by a
> miracle, a fancy....might not the dialogue that Mason has with his father,
> yet, by grace, by Nature, and her chaotic evolution against the day, save
> him if not their relationship?
>
> Save his relationship with his sons?
>
> Maybe I'm reading it all wrong. Trying to hard to make the book more than
> a metafictional masterpiece. Maybe.
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tanner, Tony. The American Mystery: American Literature from Emerson to
>> DeLillo. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000,  242pp., ISBN: 0521783747
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In this example the hypothetical or subjunctive dialogue is only a
>>> paragraph. And there it is, right there, on the same page. Had he, instead,
>>> would have...
>>>
>>> Why rub it in?
>>>
>>> All subjunctive, of course, *had *young Mason gone to his father, this *might
>>> have been* the conversation likely to result.
>>>
>>> I don't think Pynchon has underestimated the reader here. There is
>>> something else to it.
>>>
>>> Tony Tanner says that P's use of the subjunctive is "an elegiac lament
>>> for the accelerating erosion of subjunctivity (225).
>>>
>>> A brilliant reader that Tony Tanner!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Elisabeth Romberg <eromberg at mac.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Next paragraph, an imagined dialogue between Mason and his father as
>>>> Jerome points out. Do you agree, though, that the last sentence: «All
>>>> subjunctive, of course, *had *young Mason gone to his father, this *might
>>>> have been* the conversation likely to result.» is over the top. I mean
>>>> it’s not as if we’ve forgotten it was imaginary from the start?
>>>>
>>>> Don't you feel a little underestimated as a reader?
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150414/f74727cd/attachment.html>