NP; Good as Gold

[Mike Jing]

So maybe even stronger than the usual sense. Thanks, Jochen.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:55 PM Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but with a little twist perhaps: ready to believe anything Linda says.
>
> Am Sa., 5. Jan. 2019 um 04:48 Uhr schrieb Mike Jing <
> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
>
>> So here "credulous" is used in the usual sense, right?
>>
>> 2. Too ready or willing to believe; inclined to believe on weak or
>> insufficient grounds. (Now the usual sense.)
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:29 PM Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that's what Heller intended: that you are puzzled. He's a great
>>> puzzler.
>>>
>>> (In nearly any other context I'd say you're right: incredulously goes
>>> with the grain.)
>>>
>>> Am Sa., 5. Jan. 2019 um 03:47 Uhr schrieb Mike Jing <
>>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I'm puzzled by the word "credulously" in the following passage:
>>>>
>>>> Several questions rose simultaneously in Gold’s mind and broke into
>>>> pieces
>>>> against each other in the burbling struggle to get out. “Together? Found
>>>> out? How? How together? Are? What do you mean found out? What do you
>>>> mean
>>>> together? How are we together?”
>>>> “Like this. He knows all about us.”
>>>> “Knows all about us? How did he find out?”
>>>> “From the children.”
>>>> “From the children? How do the children know?”
>>>> “I told them.”
>>>> Gold looked at her steadily with a troubled eye. “You told them? You
>>>> told
>>>> your children? What did you tell your children?”
>>>> “That we’re lovers.”
>>>> “Lovers?”
>>>> “You keep repeating everything I say.”
>>>> Gold was lacking the necessary equilibrium for timely repartee. “Is that
>>>> what we are, lovers?” he asked credulously.
>>>> “Of course, darling,” answered Linda with a smile. “I’m your lover and
>>>> you’re mine. What did you think we were?”
>>>> Gold did not hesitate long to give the answer that first sprang to mind.
>>>> “Fuckers.”
>>>> “Lover is so much sweeter,” said Linda Book with the ethereal
>>>> sensitivity
>>>> of a poetess, “so much richer in meaning and value, don’t you think?”
>>>> “Don’t you have to be very seriously in love to be a lover?” asked Gold.
>>>> “Oh, no,” she corrected him. “All you have to be is a fucker.”
>>>>
>>>> I can't quite make sense of it. Shouldn't it be "incredulously" instead?
>>>> --
>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>