Eliot sez Shakespeare 'might never be fully understood'

[Mark Kohut]

And even if lesser, I am thinking the same thing right now about
Pynchon, esp M& D at the moment.

My (Partial) Reading; summary of How to Read M & D, which leaves so
many Unanswered Questions (so far)


Vroom Girls OR Chapters 6--9.

Rev CherryCoke, an up-there-in years unbelieving minister, is narrating
the story of Mason & Dixon's Flight to Cape Town. He has an audience
of the young, teenage relatives. If he can't Scheherazade them, he's done
narrating. They like racy, "if it leads, it bleeds", joke-filled stereotypical
folk interacting with M & D.

Some think the story chapters in which the Rev does not appear by name
are chapters told in kinda indirect discourse by an overall narrator.
Others think that, even as tacit background, The Rev is basically
telling this story---
under the conditions above.

Book is full of hidden LITERARY allusions, homages, playing--withs. [PS Eliot
sez Senecan stoicism was a 'literary representation" by 17th Century England.
This book seems to allude to lots of 'literary representation" within
it. One reason
I am not inclined to read as 'real history'. I see embodied ideas in
most scenes;
want to know the others I cannot see.

So, let me count the ways we have to take in the tales? Unreliably told.
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l