Literary discussion?

[ish mailian]

His sticks against Heidegger.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:26 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:

> A conservative idea: the more things change the more they remain the same.
>
> What is it that does not change?
>
> Is it the basic ingredients? The elements out of which all things spring?
>
> Or is it a design? Some principle that guides all things? To....a good?
>
> The Minister of Trade in the Man in the High Castle with his Book of
> Changes?
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Never got to the New Yorker piece, but given the same work, say,
>> Submission, the actual effect on the reader may be more a function of
>> reader age than of author intent. The Young laugh at the misbehavior
>> scornfully, believing human conduct must change. The laughter in the Old is
>> more of a chuckle, knowing the more things change the more they are the
>> same.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the parsing of this distinction. Maybe that is the best way to
>>> understand it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I would think a sincere satirist was one who cared about the effect
>>> his work
>>> > has on readers.  If he or she wants to change readers' consciousness
>>> they're
>>> > sincere.  Not sure about which category H fits into. Some call him a
>>> > nihilist, not caring about nothin'.  But he's a fine writer.
>>> >
>>> > Kindle readers like me don't get to see the dust jacket.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Submission has been on my wish list for some time - it just got
>>> boosted to
>>> >> very soon after the new year.   Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bek
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Dec 30, 2015, at 5:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > the jacket for SUBMISSION quotes Adam Gopnick ( New Yorker) calling
>>> >> > Houellebecq " not only a satire but a sincere ( in italics)
>>> satirist,
>>> >> > genuinely saddened by the absurdities of history And  madnesses of
>>> mankind"
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My question: how does a sincere satirist differ from an insincere
>>> one?
>>> >> > Only answer I can think of is that it is Effective, real, artistic
>>> >> > satire--contrasted with failed satire, not right, not deep, not
>>> original.
>>> >> > .....
>>> >> > Pynchon's satire is sincere, right? swift's, of course, right?  I
>>> >> > thought it was a virtual truism that the best satire springs from
>>> idealism (
>>> >> > sincere) showing up the real world's failings.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Sent from my iPad-
>>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>> >>
>>> >> -
>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160102/fbb9c9ec/attachment.html>