Another Greif review

Mon May 25 09:36:57 CDT 2015

After the Vexing Virgin, after the Awaiting of the Crying, and after the
Screaming came the Silence, then the Slow Learner confessions of fascistic
Bunkerism, then the Disappointment, Vineland the Not so Good. What upset
readers and critics was the idea that Pynchon written a a Political Protest
novel, and that the politics seemed more  "harmful [than] serviceable",
though, as Booth notes and as our discussions prove, it remains  "a complex
question, a question that cannot be settled by any easy reference to
abstract rules", those of Grief or any other critic.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> In short, the author’s judgment is always present, always evident to
> anyone who knows how to look for it. Whether its particular forms are
> harmful or serviceable is always a complex question, a question that cannot
> be settled by any easy reference to abstract rules. As we now begin to deal
> with this question, we must never forget that though the author can to some
> extent choose his disguises, he can never choose to disappear.
>
> Notice Booth’s usage of the verb “deal” here. He is not going to*answer* the
> question but *deal* with it. Everything for Booth is complicated and
> often irreducible to directives or mandates.
>
> http://www.nwreview.com/essays/aristotle-and-mr-booth.html
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not so easy-Peasy, I suggest. ( not to self: must read the Greif book).
>> Greif still hasn't answered the question of FINDING, not projecting, the "
>> ultimate value" of 'ambiguity' OR NOT having to choose--as part of P's
>> vision--between what Greif sets up as binary choices.
>>
>> And, in that other genius I've been reading, Will S. It has long been a
>> truism that we know almost nothing about what he " ultimately" believed,
>> since he dramatizes all sides of most 'ultimate' questions, most political
>> ones, etc.
>>
>> This does not mean we can't find pretty terrif depths of " truths" in his
>> works.
>>
>> This does not also mean every reading is a personal projection, although
>> parts of every reading may be. Can we read, see anything, live without "
>> interpreting"? DO we stand on turtles all the way down?
>>
>> Yet, we do find local, even ultimate values in Shakespeare's individual
>> plays and works. Perhaps, like Pynchon, at a depth which ruins MOST
>> low-level generalizations---perhaps like my recent ones on his leftism.
>>
>> Yet, Herr Doctor ( if he is)  Greif: is not humor, laughing in life, at
>> life, whatever, an ' ultimate value'
>> In Pynchon. I could go on, I say, at some basic level I think Plisters
>> would agree on. Why, and as my first suggestion above, does this NOT COUNT?
>> because "ultimate questions" means God-believer or not, political or not
>> and what banal position, for violent change in society or not?--Adam
>> Kirsch's misreading--
>>
>> c'mon.just because we tried "to discuss some early political positions,
>> badly in my case I say now, does not mean something relevant is not there
>> in the works. I invoke a simple appeal to
>> Our shared " common sense". reading the works--and knowing a few things
>> about him--such as the signed letter in an ad against withholding taxes
>> because Vietnam, don't we all think his " politics" then was liberal/Left
>> in common usage?
>>
>> Yet, did not deep cultural " conservatives" such as Eliot, Adams
>> influence his cultural, historical THINKING?
>>
>> Is Greif's remark ' value-free, I ask? I suggest it is a small t, truth,
>> and even he finds Lots of Big T, Truths---ultimate values--in Pynchon or he
>> would not have focused on him as he does in his book.
>>
>> Rest in Know-Nothingism--what would be Greif's ultimate Pynchon value if
>> we badly generalized--and you miss lots of truth and beauty, beauty as
>> truths.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On May 24, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm appreciating the Greif quotation at the top of this thread more all
>> the time. Thanks to all.
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I hope that those who like criticism have gotten round to Pynchon and
>>> the Political
>>> by Samuel Thomas and specifically to the essay or chapter on Resistance
>>> vs. Withdrawal. Maybe these terms are better than the charged Left and
>>> Right. Again, in SL Pynchon says the criminally insane since 1945, and that
>>> would include maniacs from the Left and the Right, so, while Reagan and
>>> Bush are obviously insane, Brock Vond insanity, Bush's threat to use the
>>> bomb or tactical nukes ...etc....the insanity is not monopolized by the
>>> Right, for the Left does more or less the same. So, while the lesser of two
>>> inanities, the Left is still a position one must withdraw from. But is
>>> withdrawal possible? Worth it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I remember. But what of his equally, no tougher critique of
>>>> Organized Labor, of the New Left culture in NYC, of Marx in that same work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreeing with the Left on most things ought to be a definition of
>>>>> being a Lefty, in our discussion, unless one was so....all-inclusive as to
>>>>> also agree with the Right on most things. Yes?
>>>>> He does score on the political Right against the Bircherite and the
>>>>> Ayn Rander in the early works, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 23, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot can change in 10 years, that is between V. and GR, and we can
>>>>> see a shift begin during V. then with TSI, then in Watts, Lot49, so, but I
>>>>> wouldn't say Pynchon was even then a Lefty, old or new. Agreeing with the
>>>>> Left on most things doesn't make one a Lefty.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am ambivalent about my own arguments. You may be more Right than I
>>>>>> tried to argue. I was attempting to define what might be Left or Liberal
>>>>>> but nothing may really apply. ....the anti-Bomb ( d'uh) and anti-NIXON and
>>>>>> anti-WW2 Gravity's Rainbow may have made us--me--overthink the political
>>>>>> Left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My only question now is would any cultural or political conservative
>>>>>> have embraced the human opening up of the sixties as possibility as he
>>>>>> seems to? I remember many dim but famous bulbs excoriating them almost
>>>>>> mercilessly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 23, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree on deeper conservatives. Smith, Burke, Eliot and others I
>>>>>> mentioned. As well as some politicians.
>>>>>> And, since modernism, being a visionary reactionary has changed,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 23, 2015, at 11:08 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do have to acknowledge that many conservatives not the 1 percent
>>>>>> mind you Aren't concerned with free markets. There's something deeper. Not
>>>>>> the Michigan militia types either. The racists nope not them either.
>>>>>> Who isn't afraid of "the people"? A natural distrust of mass
>>>>>> movements and institutions. Been that way since the revolution.
>>>>>> Modern politics has been hacked by modern finance most glaringly in
>>>>>> the U.S and UK. Everyone rails against the abuses of Wall St and the City,
>>>>>> left and right.
>>>>>> I consider myself left of center but I no more believe government
>>>>>> than most conservatives do.
>>>>>> I see Pynch as a lifelong distrusted of institutions going back to
>>>>>> the SI. Hard to think his anarchist leanings haven't grown stronger. What
>>>>>> other viable choice is left?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, May 23, 2015, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest he was Left, or Liberal, in this way: his critique of
>>>>>>> History was that it had moved
>>>>>>> Toward the anti-human. A left liberal believed THAT could have gone
>>>>>>> differently, and in incremental ways, still could.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conservatives, the Right, generally argue that the natural movement
>>>>>>> of History is the way of the (free) world, masking Power---that Pynchon bad
>>>>>>> shit--over the people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that Pynchon transcends prosaic political ( as party, as
>>>>>>> policy) literalisms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 23, 2015, at 6:44 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what a liberal is, or rather, what was meant when the
>>>>>>> statement was made, and how we might equate that with the terms Left, Old
>>>>>>> Left, New Left, but it seems obvious to me, anyway, that young Pynchon, the
>>>>>>> subject of his SL Introduction, was no kind of Lefty, and that after V., as
>>>>>>> the author notes on pages 22 and 23, as the author matures and shifts more
>>>>>>> toward Beat and specifically White Negro to California phase, with the
>>>>>>> publication of  "The Secret Integration" and the Watts Essay, Liberal, as
>>>>>>> in Post-JFK/James Bond phase and toward LBJ Great Society phase may be an
>>>>>>> appropriate description of the author, though with obvious latent issues of
>>>>>>> Archie Bunkerisms, but not Lefty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Dave Monroe <
>>>>>>> against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... the point having yet to have been  made.  I personally don't
>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>> V. as leaning much either way, but the Watts essay + Lot 49 I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> def. lean left(y), albeit not uncomplicatedly/uncritically so.  @
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> rate, Pynchon doesn't lend himself easily to any political position.
>>>>>>>> However ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We'd sit and talk for hours," she said. "We'd argue all the time.
>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>> was a liberal and I was a conservative. Of course, he was always
>>>>>>>> smarter than I was."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/pynchon.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + thanks to Doug Millison for preserving the "on the other hand"
>>>>>>>> quote
>>>>>>>> I was looking for (+, as I recall, I 1st posted here, to no reaction
>>>>>>>> [no puns where none intended, to paraphrase S. Beckett] otherwise
>>>>>>>> whatsoever [?!]) ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Referring to conservative Cornellians (Wolfowitz is a 1965 Cornell
>>>>>>>> graduate in mathematics), Corn showed his familiarity with
>>>>>>>> university
>>>>>>>> alumni when he said: 'I was accepted at Cornell and nearly attended.
>>>>>>>> Thank you for giving us both Thomas Pynchon and Ann Coulter.'"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://pynchonoid.blogspot.com/2004/09/pynchon-coulter.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/9.23.04/Corn-Lowry_debate.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, here's an unexpected namedrop I found while poking
>>>>>>>> around ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Among the graduates of the Ivy League Cornell are Ruth Bader
>>>>>>>> Ginsburg, Thomas Pynchon, Paul Wolfowitz, E.B. White, Sanford I.
>>>>>>>> Weill, Floyd Abrams, Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Ginsburg, Janet Reno,
>>>>>>>> Henry Heimlich and Harold Bloom."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2009-03-04.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Jerome Park <
>>>>>>>> jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Did someone say a collection of Pynchon's essays and letters, in
>>>>>>>> > chronological order had been collected and published?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > In 66, that is, three years after V., Pynchon groping through
>>>>>>>> white negro
>>>>>>>> > phase. Lot49, Watts.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > In the SL Introduction (1984) and Luddite (1984), we see a shift
>>>>>>>> emerging as
>>>>>>>> > Pynchon says, "It may yet turn out that racial differences are
>>>>>>>> not as basic
>>>>>>>> > as questions of money and power (page 11 top), and in that same
>>>>>>>> Intro he
>>>>>>>> > reads his own stories noting and taking interest in class
>>>>>>>> struggle, but he's
>>>>>>>> > not there yet.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I'm not gonna dig into V. again to make the point.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:28 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I don't remember any evidence of this either. I'm not disputing
>>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>> >> just never thought to ask the question.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Dave Monroe <
>>>>>>>> against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > "he was no Lefty when he wrote V., and this is easy enough to
>>>>>>>> get from
>>>>>>>> >> > the novel"
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > How so?
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Jerome Park <
>>>>>>>> jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> Pynchon ain't March, but that's another point; the point is,
>>>>>>>> he was no
>>>>>>>> >> >> Lefty
>>>>>>>> >> >> when he wrote V., and this is easy enough to get from the
>>>>>>>> novel, but P
>>>>>>>> >> >> published several essays about his formative years, including
>>>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>> >> >> revealing Intro to the SL collection, but also BDSL Intro,
>>>>>>>> and others,
>>>>>>>> >> >> plus
>>>>>>>> >> >> the letters that have been made public, and these are proof
>>>>>>>> that P was
>>>>>>>> >> >> a
>>>>>>>> >> >> conservative white boy, catholic boy who was a-political, and
>>>>>>>> then,
>>>>>>>> >> >> like so
>>>>>>>> >> >> many of his generation, radicalized artistically and
>>>>>>>> philosophically,
>>>>>>>> >> >> and
>>>>>>>> >> >> politically and this shift, a California shift, if you will,
>>>>>>>> was not
>>>>>>>> >> >> complete in GR, and even took on ironic, ambiguities (if you
>>>>>>>> must) in
>>>>>>>> >> >> VL,
>>>>>>>> >> >> then moved Left in his major works about workers in Amerika.
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Mark Kohut <
>>>>>>>> mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> My quick 'take'.
>>>>>>>> >> >>>  V shows Pynchon was never an (old) Lefty. From the
>>>>>>>> beginning we
>>>>>>>> >> >>> have a world-historical vision of enslavement in history and
>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>> >> >>> used to call back in the V. day: alienation.
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> Five decades later comes old Lefty, March.
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:53 AM, John Bailey <
>>>>>>>> sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > JP, I'm interested in this: "It's difficult to argue that
>>>>>>>> V., for
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > example, was written by a Lefty"
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > Can you elaborate? I've never thought about this and am
>>>>>>>> genuinely
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > intrigued.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > And FWIW I find Pynchon's later writing to be much more
>>>>>>>> ambiguous,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > politically speaking. Let's talk Small vs Big Government,
>>>>>>>> anarchy,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > collectivism, communitarian societies, individualism,
>>>>>>>> corporation
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > politics, taxes, etc. My views on all of these are not the
>>>>>>>> views I
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > had
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > when I first read (and loved) V. so, yeah, there's that.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Mark Kohut <
>>>>>>>> mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> I take issue. Major shifts in his work, get sure. But
>>>>>>>> lotsa deep
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> continuities, ESP re work, power in history and good shit
>>>>>>>> on life.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> On May 17, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jerome Park <
>>>>>>>> jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Rules in Saint Jerome's theory of literary criticism,
>>>>>>>> outlined by
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Foucalt in
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> his famous "What is an author?":
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> 1. if among several books attributed to an author one is
>>>>>>>> inferior
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> to
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> others, it must be withdrawn from the author's works
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> 2. if one book contradicts the doctrine expounded in the
>>>>>>>> others it
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> must
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> be
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> withdrawn
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> 3. if written in a different style, it must be withdrawn
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Foucault argues that modern criticism still defines
>>>>>>>> authors in the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> same
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> way.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Of course, lots of critics have noted major shifts in
>>>>>>>> Pynchon
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> "doctrine" and
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> in quality and style.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> It's difficult to argue that V., for example, was written
>>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Lefty,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> surely not by the same Left shifting Pynchon who wrote
>>>>>>>> the SL
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Introduction
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> where he says that he finds a substrate of economic
>>>>>>>> forces that
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> undermine,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> then, co-opt the qualities of the working class. In any
>>>>>>>> event,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> there
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> are
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> clear and major shifts in Pynchon "doctrine", in how he
>>>>>>>> sees work,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> workers, the forces that weaken the workers and their
>>>>>>>> champions.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Rather
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> than
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> repeat the mantra that the red baiting government
>>>>>>>> dismembered
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> labor,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Pynchon
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> shows that forces more powerful than government, labor
>>>>>>>> itself, and
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> tragic ironies of human relations were largely
>>>>>>>> responsible. The
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> rich
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> powerful Vibe is no match for the forces of Nature, ours
>>>>>>>> and Hers,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> but
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> battle has left the planet bleeding on the edge.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Heikki R
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> <situations.journeys.comedy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>> Already "Vineland"?
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:10 PM, rich <
>>>>>>>> richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> I think that's generally true but in his recent
>>>>>>>> offerings the
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> ambiguity
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> pro-offered is less ambiguous
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mark Kohut
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> or, since one of his 'values' seems to be
>>>>>>>> anti-Either-Orness,
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> one
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> might reject the dichotomy in the choice as so
>>>>>>>> presented and
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> embrace
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> the poised ambiguities of meanings.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> As a value.
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Monte Davis
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > "It becomes impossible to declare Pynchon's ultimate
>>>>>>>> 'values'
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > without
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > exposing yourself to the embarrassing admission that
>>>>>>>> you may
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > just
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > want
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > Pynchon to share your values, and thus settle for
>>>>>>>> one or
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > another
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > of
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > his
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> > alternatives on that basis." (Mark Greif)
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>> http://www.publicbooks.org/nonfiction/the-trouble-with-modernity
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> -
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> > -
>>>>>>>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150525/a8e7a3c1/attachment.html>