Bleeding Edge better 2nd or is it 3rd time?

Tue Oct 19 14:22:59 UTC 2021

I will push back on the 'doing it for money' judgment. That is not him.
Even if they ARE as bad as you find them, which I and many/most do not
agree with, they are genuine Pynchon attempts.

PS: He and his family could probably live on Lot 49 royalties alone, not to
mention the royalties from the others. He won a MacArthur and didn't change
his lifestyle, it seems.
He has turned down all his life publishing ways to maximize his income,
from withdrawing *V* from the Modern Library; from withdrawing *Gravity's
Rainbow* from Sonny Mehta's prestige line,
Everyman's Editions, of course refusing any asked-for writing or speaking
gigs, as is too obvious to mention.

His wife, the mother of his child, surely earns enough as an agent *for
others* to take care of their family and themselves. She too, so
prestigious, turns down lots more business than she takes
because of her desire for certain authors and books over others.....

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:12 AM rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> In all sincerity, in the answer to the question, having tried three times
> to get through it, the answer still remains no. I know others feel
> differently but half the book has this stephen king-level mawkish vibe
> which drives me crazy and some annoying verbal ticks, eg. ('as [enter some
> singer or song title] sez':  blah blah blah.
> Not to belabor the point, but the book should have been Lot 49 in size.
> I'd say there are a handful of inspired vignettes but out of close to 500
> pgs? In the grand scheme of things, they feel to me...unnecessary. I've
> mentioned on the list my take on the last three books. But even though
> There's much in AtD I dont like there's plenty that I do. I cant say thats
> the case BE (or IV)
> I don't blame him for doing it, we all need to squirrel away what we can
> for retirement and for our family, but I think he may have written the last
> two books for money. but what do I know
>
> rich
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:17 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
> > What I have seen with our too slow, too scheduled reads is that
> > participation fades quickly and the group ends long before the novel is
> > done. This has happened several times. Taking the novel in faster larger
> > chunks should not not limit granular focus or in-depth explorations of
> the
> > story or a theme. The question of disgreement is merely a suggestion.
> Avoid
> > arguments that can’t be resolved. Accept variations of thought, heresies,
> > punk attitudes, Pynchon piety. For my thinking there is no correct or
> > incorrect interpretations, particularly with an honest attempt to
> > understand. There are no TP bishops or popes; people read as they read,
> > think as they think. The value of diversity is not final proof but the
> > broadening  and balancing effect of different ways of seeing.
> > There is a wonderful Ursula Leguin  series of short stories about
> > transilience, a technology that allows a ship and people to move many
> light
> > years instantly. The fiirst story is callled Shobie’s Story.The first
> group
> > to test it end up with different members each having a totally different
> > and sometimes divergent experience following the transilience which only
> > begins to be resolved when they gather and each tells her or his story.
> > Another story includes a charismatic person who tries to control the
> whole
> > thing and ends up with delusions that lead him to electrocute himself in
> a
> > misunderstood religious ceremony.
> >
> > Anyone else up for this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 19, 2021, at 4:08 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am afraid you lost me at ..."my idea is to move faster than we tend
> to
> > do." Nope, slower is always better imo. it is feeling the detail, all of
> it
> > that matters most. Rendering the generalities that arise in touch with
> the
> > reality of the text. Otherwise it is
> > > bloviating with one's higher order "truths', which may be truths but
> > exist independently from a connection to the text.
> > >
> > > You also lost me here: " I also suggest we try to avoid the you’re
> wrong
> > I’m right approach and  handle disagreement with more respect or simply
> to
> > try to enjoy the variety and put down one’s own thoughts."..Have you
> been a
> > part of our most recent but
> > > now in the wayback time, Reads? They have already been what you want.
> > There is so much to notice and say. You, Joseph, as I've said to you
> > directly do mini-essay riffs I like when you put down your thoughts. Your
> > test-based thoughts. Also, it seems simply a fact that there can be
> scores
> > of different readings, more than scores, but there can also be simply
> > mistaken ones that need pointed out as mistaken. Otherwise the words of
> > Bleeding Edge have no meaning at all.
> > >
> > > IF you may be thinking of some of my rude language regarding
> non-Pynchon
> > writers, like the way I call some moronic commentators you quote, morons,
> > know I do not do that, never have, on a Group Read and won't. If you
> quote
> > one of them moronically I will note that.
> > >
> > > I'm up for a reread of Bleeding Edge. I hope it would be more than we
> > two. But if you want to comment via a faster read, continue as you did to
> > start this. Nice observations.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > JT: No worries about spoilers etc. freely seeing the text as a whole in
> > commenting on any given passage, theme or event. It really is quick as an
> > audio book. The reader is good with narrative flow and dramatic voicing
> if
> > sometimes weaker with longer ruminations.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:26 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net
> <mailto:
> > brook7 at sover.net>> wrote:
> > > I am listening to Bleeding Edge via Library audio  book system today.
> It
> > seems different with 20 years of distance from actual 9/11 and from  the
> > time of  publication, both funnier and darker, in some ways more eerily
> > prescient( maybe not so eerily). I have HS students born after 911.
> >  Pynchon's approach of viewing the event through the lens of the internet
> > and digital technology that is such a large part of our cultural reality
> > gives it a McLuhanesque spin that is worth some thought. In some ways New
> > York is one of the last outposts of dense non-digital neighborhoods and
> > human contacts but is increasingly, as all places, mediated by cell
> phones,
> > commercial media, isolation and less by social gathering and
> conversation..
> > Still there is an intensity of color in NYC that P works with expertly.
> > >
> > > If anyone wants to engage in a read/listen/conversation and all the
> > attached risks, my idea is to move faster than we tend to do. I also
> > suggest we try to avoid the you’re wrong I’m right approach and  handle
> > disagreement with more respect or simply to try to enjoy the variety and
> > put down one’s own thoughts. No worries about spoilers etc. freely seeing
> > the text as a whole in commenting on any given passage, theme or event.
> It
> > really is quick as an audio book. The reader is good with narrative flow
> > and dramatic voicing if sometimes weaker with longer ruminations.
> > >
> > > Anyone? Mike? How many would make a quorum?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> > https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
> >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>