I was gonna 'research' this more before

[Mark Kohut]

Monte,

You're pretty good at finding not-obvious allusions within P's work. I remember
many--such as the real literary Mole (and Rat) within AtD, with all
the usual meanings.
And many others.

So, yes we must be very wary of inferences from what he doesn't say, yet we
do make them and smartly.



On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah, my speculation anyway is that those he does acknowledge are
> important in minor ways...stylistic mostly. He nudges us
> a little to get some influences 'of his time".
>
> And the deep influences are in the work for us to find. Or not.
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Insufficient data, insufficient sample size. P has revealed so little about
>> influences and sources (compared to the scope of the oeuvre) that I'm
>>
>> (1) wary of inferences that those
>> he does acknowledge are especially canonical for him, and
>>
>>
>> (2) very wary of inferences from what he *doesn't* say.
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l