Another Greif review

Dave Monroe against.the.dave at gmail.com
Mon May 25 15:11:18 CDT 2015


John Gardner fan?

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> To Mr. Perec,
>
> I will argue MORAL, as in moral vision, as in value-based notions about
> humans in history, in life until I am replaced by a machine.
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 25, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yea, but my point was different, the anxiety and influence on a strong
> reader and writer like Pynchon is different in GR than in his formative
> years. As he explains, he made use of stuff he didn't understand when he was
> young and he paid the price, and his work did, but as he matured it didn't
> matter, his strong readings produced strong writings. That Pynchon may have
> misread, Weber, for example, by GR, doesn't matter anymore.
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Christoph Perec <christophperec at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I thought Bloom's point about projecting your values onto literature is
>> that this allows you to "overhear" yourself and so you weigh and consider
>> new possibilities and, if you are critical enough, can learn and grow. The
>> flipside to this of course is that, if you're uncritical, you find agreement
>> from all angles.
>>
>> Also I'm confused about the discussion here. Do people think that
>> Pynchon's novels push political/moral/ideological viewpoints? That's
>> definitely not the case, although Pynchon's work is easier than most to find
>> approval of the reader's values from (Dave put up a review of Bleeding Edge
>> by David Auerbach last week which is a good example of this). The power in
>> his writing comes from the tension of various opposing values. He's a writer
>> of koans, no?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Jerome Park <jeromepark3141 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In Bloom's sense, strong  readings of Pynchon or Shakespeare or any other
>>> artist worth the trouble, are those of a reader who finds her own ideas and
>>> values, albeit,  dressed up in clever ambiguities, in the work.
>>>
>>> This is not the same as the weak reader who enjoys seeing his values
>>> dressed up clever disguises.
>>>
>>> But to discover how the artist has fashioned those values into his art,
>>> and how the values have changed over time, and how the art too has changed,
>>> this, it seems to me, requires that we dispense with the reader response or
>>> text as reflection of the reader's values only approach.
>>>
>>> In the end, if the books are mere reflections of the reader, then we
>>> elevated them to a status they don't deserve. Why read at all if only to
>>> confirm one's values?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:33 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
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list