https://www.internationalpynchonweek.org/conference-program?fbclid=IwAR3fAQX-rs2SbFbi-oax4yvXGTyCYuyh-ev5MGDesy5-WfnJnXT4RdWHoz8

Fri Mar 25 06:05:04 UTC 2022

Snappy comeback, Jerky.  And I could think of no better reason for
restarting GR so many times.  But if you still feel MD to be its superior,
I hope that some day soon we can wrangle enough interest to have a group
read of it here to put it through our collective acid test...  But long
books have met their own group-read demises on the P-list many times, and
not for causing excessive group-rapture.  I may just have to read it again
all on my own real soon.

David Morris

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:48 PM Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well JR is just a stone hoot, a delight that serves as both a wonderful,
> hilarious desert island distraction, AND a deep meditation on the nature of
> money and the people who have it. So I'm with you on that (although The
> Recognitions is "chef's finger-kiss", no doubt).
>
> As for me being "special needs" because of how many times it took me to
> lock in to certain Pynchon tomes (which mostly entailed reading the first
> 50 to 100 pages before getting drunk on all that genius prose, causing me
> to put it aside to finish later, but when I eventually return to it,
> refusing to skip what I'd read before, and thus, in this new re-reading,
> finding EVEN MORE to think about and ruminate on and get drunk upon), I
> dare say we ALL have some sort of special needs in this day and age,
> especially where it involves attention spans and abilities to concentrate,
> right?
>
> But hey, I also read a lot of complex philosophy (Heidegger, Nietzche,
> Schopenhauer) for pleasure, so I can't be a TOTAL lost cause!
>
> yer old pal Jerky
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 6:45 PM Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll confess to having read Vineland maybe twice, Inherent Vice only
>> once, and Bleeding Edge only once. None of them seemed to demand a second
>> look. I read Against the Day when it came out, then listened to it. Read
>> Mason & Dixon when it came out, and read it again a couple of years ago.
>> Read V. probably four times (and even went to Valetta on vacation once just
>> because), read the Slow Learner stories many, many times, The Crying of Lot
>> 49 too many times to count, and ... Gravity's Rainbow so many times it's
>> almost embarrassing. Also listened to that glorious George Guidall
>> audiobook of it in the samizdat, hissing version. And went through that
>> book of "what happens on every page." So, yeah, no. Gravity's Rainbow is
>> the one. I fully appreciate anyone who has trouble getting started or who
>> gives up or who hates every word. That's fine, it's not for everyone and,
>> at my advanced age, I am finished with proselytizing [aside from this note,
>> natch]. Read whatever you like to read, don't read things just because
>> *I* like them. It's the same way with my real obsession, William Gaddis.
>> At least with TRP there is a bustling and active listserv (this one, let's
>> be clear!) and, ahem, ongoing interest. [Also for the record, with WG,
>> Sophie's choice is J R over The Recognitions; fight me.]
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:26 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jerky, my friend,
>>>
>>> You and I are built very differently, it seems to me (which surprises
>>> me):
>>>
>>>  I held back when you stated:
>>>
>>> *“Mason & Dixon, for example, is arguably the superior work [to GR].”*
>>>
>>> Were you begging for an argument, I wondered?  And then you said, “it
>>> took
>>> me well over 20 false starts with Gravity's Rainbow.”  And I thought,
>>> “Oh! *special
>>> needs.*” 😝
>>>
>>> And then you said, “it took me about a half dozen runs at V. to get past
>>> "that" chapter.”  And I figured, “Well, the first step…”
>>>
>>> As for ATD, I’m just finishing my second read, and am enjoying it, but
>>> also
>>> of a double mind (which fits, if you have Icelandic Spar spectacles).
>>> I’ve
>>> been a bit impatient with it, because I truly believe it needed a strict
>>> editor to force Pynchon to reduce it by about 1/3 it’s length.  But it is
>>> richly written, and it has a cast of well-developed characters.  If the
>>> goal was an encompassing science-spiritual-existential-political
>>> structure,
>>> I think it constantly pokes at those things, but never with anything near
>>> conclusiveness.  Lots of hopeful speculations, but also with a gentle
>>> cynicism.
>>>
>>> But it’s far better than BE (and VL, and IV, and COL49) if that is of any
>>> relief.  And if this group was willing to take on MD, I’d be all the way
>>> in.
>>>
>>> *David Morris*
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 5:44 PM Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Man, I hate to admit this, but I have yet to read Against the Day.
>>> >
>>> > I just can't wrap my head around the basic identity of the thing if
>>> that
>>> > makes any sense, and that's something I kind of need to be able to do
>>> with
>>> > a novel before I tackle the actual reading part.
>>> >
>>> > Also, I'm not the brightest bulb in the marquee, so while I read Lot
>>> 49,
>>> > Vineland and Inherent Vice without difficulty, it took me about a half
>>> > dozen runs at V. to get past "that" chapter (Stencil's quick change
>>> > chapter), it took me well over 20 false starts with Gravity's Rainbow
>>> (and
>>> > now I know the first fifty pages or so by heart), about the same for
>>> Mason
>>> > & Dixon. As for Bleeding Edge, I quit at the third awful sex scene, and
>>> > have yet to get back to it. I realize the group read would have been a
>>> good
>>> > opportunity to fill that Pynchonian lacuna, but I just had too much
>>> going
>>> > on when y'all started.
>>> >
>>> > Jerky
>>> >
>>> > Jerky
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:50 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Agreed.
>>> > >
>>> > > And *Against the Day* is the largest and richest of all. But not as
>>> > > perfect as those two.
>>> > >
>>> > > Mark
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:42 AM Mark Thibodeau <
>>> jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Agreed.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Pynchon has masterworks to spare. And GR has already been thoroughly
>>> > >> explored.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Mason & Dixon, for example, is arguably the superior work.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Jerky
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Thu., Mar. 24, 2022, 9:35 a.m. rich, <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> program is interesting in GR is hardly the subject of any, if at
>>> all,
>>> > >>> which
>>> > >>> is a good thing
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> rich
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 4:22 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>>
>>> >
>>> https://www.internationalpynchonweek.org/conference-program?fbclid=IwAR3fAQX-rs2SbFbi-oax4yvXGTyCYuyh-ev5MGDesy5-WfnJnXT4RdWHoz8
>>> > >>> > --
>>> > >>> > 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
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>
>>