Another Greif review

Mon May 25 11:54:54 CDT 2015

I DO have a degree in the language (I just can't type, is all; also,
minors in Comp Lit + math, only got halfway through my physics degree
[stupidly took Electricity + Magnetism I, Quantum Physics I,
Shakespeare I, Thermodynamics, + a writing workshop all in one
semester; yr only sposta take one of those physics classes per
semester, apparently; they wouldn't count my Anthro grad class towards
a mother minor, but that produced the paper that I sent to grad
schools [though I think my Milton paper on Books I + IX via E. Goffman
+ S. Greenblatt was far more elegantly conceived/written, just not
nearly as crazy as a comparison of Bakhtin + Derrida via S. Handyman's
The Slayers ofMses [q.v.]).  Was supposed to get my M.A., +,
hopefully, my Ph.D. @ The U. of Chicago (I think they've still
produced more Nobel Prize winners than any other institution on the
planet, albeit not in Literature, +, worryingly, I suspect the "Nobel"
[added long after the fact] for Economics is a contributing factor,
but ... I told 'em I was gonna work on English Renaissance Emblem
Poetry [?!]), but being orphaned 25 years ago + (stupidly, as it
turned out, for the both of us) becoming legal guardian to my (the)
9-year-old brother (now hopelessly schizophrenic/criminally insane; my
mom's sister blames Schoenberg) complicated matters. I deferred
quarterly 'til I had to reapply, + by ten, I was so
demoralized/profligate (applied just before my dad died, was accepted
just in time for him to die believing, 2 least, that I had a future,
but not, alas, in time for financial aid; y inheritance would have
paid my way through).

But I THINK I've kept up w/ the reading, @ least (perhaps mores than I
might have been able to as a student-then-perfesser [don't have a
driver's license, either, have saved a lot of lives either way, I
suspect]).

For the record, I'm Derridean/New Historicist (also, Burkean
conservative/socialaist; incongruity might as well be my middle name;
but M. Berube's/L. Herman + S. Weisenburger's/C. Hollander's
{?!--a.k.a. The Dude) approaches are as close to mine as anything I've
read (meanwhile, I just realized I actually unconsciously alphabetized
those; have actually bibliographized/copy edited/indexed [did it again
...] published "scholarly" works, even get name dropped from time to
time [inc. in a recent Pynchon book]).

But I don't disagree  w/ John's (an excellent scholar/writer, by the
way) characterization, though I'm @ pains to dispel the drug
dealing/child molesting overtones there.

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 6:20 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> I sense you tittering whenever you employ the term 'Lefty' in much the
> same way Alice Wellintown (I think it was) wrote "IT'S ABOUT WORK" and
> so on. Something you've got on the mental stove and are enjoying the
> curlicued fumes reaching nostrils in various directions. I don't
> really know what's going on behind your curtain but the WORK thing
> proved fruitful in the end.
>
> As for the SJ School of Criticism, Dave Monroe is part
> autodidact-polymath and part
> guy-who-peddles-knowledge-behind-the-bike-sheds so I'm ok if someone
> speaks outside of school. Orthodoxy is hardly encouraged in P's
> writing, even if the Foucaultian (or Barthesian) Way has taken us far.
> A fine author once wrote to those seeking to find the spring's source:
> Not bad. Keep trying.
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> When does Pynchon not problematise a political dream? Those with political
>> enthusiasm are apt to keep it even when things, or they, flip or flop, or
>> indoctrinate their children who flip or flop.
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:51 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the problem here is Lefty versus Righty without bringing in
>>> all those other axioms Dave mentions...
>>>
>>> More fruitful to think of different scales of conservative versus
>>> progressive, anarchistic versus authoritarian, individualistic versus
>>> communitarian/collectivist? In terms of the books, I'd say for sure.
>>> There are Lefties and Righties in them but that opposition is never
>>> the structuring dialectic.
>>>
>>> The anarchist question is the most interesting one from COL49 to GR to
>>> AtD, I think. GR is so formally anarchic, but AtD really seems to
>>> problematise the anarchist dream and is more pro-union, organised
>>> action and community spirit. Go team!
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dave Monroe
>>>
>>> <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I have yet to see all too much actual textual evidence of much of
>>> > anything here yet.  The possible ... say, nigh unto sinister
>>> > character of McCS has been argued here before (way before ,,,).  I
>>> > tend not to disagree w/ the ... ambiguity? multivalence, more likely,
>>> > of most anything the Pynchon's written (or, hopefully, will write).
>>> > But arguing that Pynchon is "a lefty" is one thing; "not lefty,"
>>> > however, is not equivalent to "righty" (and vicey versey).  But it's
>>> > difficult @ best (hence my puzzlement over that Cornell conservative
>>> > comment) to read him as a mainstream American conservative, against
>>> > whichever (historical et al.) context each of the novels were written.
>>> > He may share certain interests (e.g., anarchism) w/ certain strands of
>>> > non-mainstream American conservatism (again, given ...), but then
>>> > again, so do many (non-mainstream) liberals/"Lefties" (and I oughtta
>>> > know, I get caught in the crossfire often enough amongst my friends
>>> > alone ...).
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, 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
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> > -
>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>
>>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l