Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3443 Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3443
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3443
>
>
>
> NPPF - What does it all mean?
> re: "They love it when you owe money"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> (14.26) "kissoff story"
> VLVL2 work (Pynchon's)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF - What does it all mean?
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> VLVL2 (2) Friday the 13th's 'Final Girl'
> VLVL2 (2) Horror films: Art or Commodity?
> mo re Mies
> Re: VLVL2 (2) Friday the 13th's 'Final Girl'
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: NPPF - What does it all mean?
>
> Patterns, mirror images, anagrams, word golf, and all other phenomena of
> transforming and discovering hidden surprises in the novel Pale Fire are
the
> ⌠texture■ that supercedes the ⌠text.⌠ For Shade (and maybe VN) this
texture is
> a reassuring hint at an overarching ⌠oneness■ or lack of total randomness
of
> the cosmos. These patterns are sought out, and there they are! Accident?
> Coincidence? Planned? Projected? If anything were to relate this NPPF
to
> Pynchon, this would be it. For Pynchon this is all a manifestation of
> ⌠paranoia■ (but They may really be out to get you). Nabakov doesn▓t give
this
> pattern-quest a name, but for him it is clearly a sign of hope, and an
> assurance of being a part of something bigger than one small life. And as
> Terrance would tell you, Religion is at the heart of it all...
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:41:16 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > But, given the purpose Fish articulates, doesn't Milton go too far in
> > making Satan so psychologically compelling, and his fall tragic? Fish's
> > argument strikes me as a justification of entrapment [...]"
>
>
> I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two dynamics
> into play. On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who,
especially
> early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
>
> "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
>
> or
>
> "He scarce had ceased when the superior Fiend
> Was moving toward the shore . . ." (I: 282-83+)
>
> or following the Debate in Hell,
>
> "Satan, whom now transcendent glory raised
> Above his fellows, with monarchal pride
> Conscious of highest worth, unmoved thus spake" (II: 426-28)
>
> the voice of the Miltonic bard is again present, reminding us, providing
> moral bearings for the reader by subtle reminders that this character is
> *not* to be trusted entirely. If Milton hadn't provided this gentle
appeal
> to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the poet
is
> guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only s/he
> will heed the words.
>
> Sorta like Milton's God. : )
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:53:23 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> on 25/7/03 10:31 PM, Malignd wrote:
>
> > I haven't lost sight, although I don't always note it,
> > of the difference between the poem as Nabokov's and
> > the poem as Shade's.
>
> I was beginning to wonder.
>
> > The poem, with (I think intended (by VN)) lapses, is
> > still far better (as Shade's) than you're giving it
> > credit for being.
>
> You're free to apply your own "test tubes and calipers" as you like, of
> course, though thus far you've offered little to substantiate your claim.
> And beyond the frequent lapses in style there are also those larger
> questions relating to Shade's chosen subject matter and the philosophical
> pretensions of the piece, and the incongruity of his own work habits. In
> fact, it seems to me that Shade's the one who measures creativity and
> aesthetic value -- let alone personal grief -- in terms of a fixed quota
of
> lines per day.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:52:36 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two
dynamics
> > into play.
>
> There is no doubt about the entrapment of but a select few heroes --the
> series of great and greater men from Adam to Jesus, from Milton to the a
> few Men who will not be entrapped.
>
>
> On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who, especially
> > early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> > Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> > especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> > points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> > later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> > Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
> >
> > "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> > Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
> >
> > or
>
> Subtle? While we don't need these comments, the plot is quite enough to
> convince us that Satan is the evil one, we get them from the very start
> of the drama and through out and they are not subtle.
>
>
>
> If Milton hadn't provided this gentle appeal
> > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
poet is
> > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
s/he
> > will heed the words.
> >
> > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
>
> Not sure what you mean, but Milton's God is a bore, an abstraction.
> Satan is alive, is all too human.
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:02:56 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> On Entrapment, see
>
> Phyllis Rackin's "The Role Of the Audience," SHQ 36 (1085) 262-81.
>
> The Pynchon connections are,
>
> cross dressing, reader-trap, and of course Pointsman is modeled on
> Richard II
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:05:13 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> >>> the poem achieves its greatness from the ways it is misinterpreted and
> mishandled by
> the commentator. <<<
>
> Nabokov has written a poem, then made it incredibly difficult for any
reader
> of the poem to read it on its own merits. Kinbote says he has the last
word,
> and the assertion above agrees. Of course, even if we read it
independently
> of Kinbote's offerings, we are then left with our own offerings. Our own
> forewords and commentaries. Does the poem achieve greatness from the ways
we
> mishandle and misinterpret it? Is there any value in reading the poem and
> interpreting it without Kinbote's input? Someone down the street is making
a
> terrible racket with one of those gas-powered edgers.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Tim, I don't think Milton is guilty of entrapment; I think Stanley Fish is
> offering an explanation that assumes he is. The quotations sound eerily
> Kinbotean.
>
> I don't remember much from the Empson book (Milton's God), but one
> metaphor stays with me: Michael's explanation to Adam as being assaulted
> by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until you say that he's the
> Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it, but afterwards you're
> likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Michael
>
>
> though. On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Tim Strzechowski wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But, given the purpose Fish articulates, doesn't Milton go too far in
> > > making Satan so psychologically compelling, and his fall tragic?
Fish's
> > > argument strikes me as a justification of entrapment [...]"
> >
> >
> > I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two
dynamics
> > into play. On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who,
especially
> > early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> > Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> > especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> > points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> > later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> > Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
> >
> > "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> > Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
> >
> > or
> >
> > "He scarce had ceased when the superior Fiend
> > Was moving toward the shore . . ." (I: 282-83+)
> >
> > or following the Debate in Hell,
> >
> > "Satan, whom now transcendent glory raised
> > Above his fellows, with monarchal pride
> > Conscious of highest worth, unmoved thus spake" (II: 426-28)
> >
> > the voice of the Miltonic bard is again present, reminding us, providing
> > moral bearings for the reader by subtle reminders that this character is
> > *not* to be trusted entirely. If Milton hadn't provided this gentle
appeal
> > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
poet is
> > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
s/he
> > will heed the words.
> >
> > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - What does it all mean?
>
> And, BTW, this all dovetails very nicely into the Bergson concepts of that
> Michael Joeseph has brought to this reading. This is really great! And I
> think it argues in favor of "no need" to resolve the puzzles and patterns
> present in PF. I think the message of PF is more about this concept of a
> Universe and Time which trancends, but as Shade tells us in the poem about
the
> fountain he saw when he was dead, the meaning of it could only make sense
to
> someone who has crossed over fully to the other side.
>
> - --- David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Patterns, mirror images, anagrams, word golf, and all other phenomena of
> transforming and discovering hidden surprises in the novel Pale Fire are
the
> ⌠texture■ that supercedes the ⌠text.⌠ For Shade (and maybe VN) this
texture is
> a reassuring hint at an overarching ⌠oneness■ or lack of total randomness
of
> the cosmos. These patterns are sought out, and there they are! Accident?
> Coincidence? Planned? Projected? If anything were to relate this NPPF
to
> Pynchon, this would be it. For Pynchon this is all a manifestation of
> ⌠paranoia■ (but They may really be out to get you). Nabakov doesn▓t give
this
> pattern-quest a name, but for him it is clearly a sign of hope, and an
> assurance of being a part of something bigger than one small life. And as
> Terrance would tell you, Religion is at the heart of it all...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> - --- Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> Michael's explanation to
> > Adam as being assaulted
> > by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until
> > you say that he's the
> > Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it,
> > but afterwards you're
> > likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
>
> Tell it to Job.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:28:34 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> I was the terrible racket of one
> of those gas powered edgers down the street,
> out-blasting the shadows of California sun,
> envy and calumny, and hate and pain,
> and every jealous flower the Joanzes keep up,
> on that suburban block of quiet life.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> <<You're free to apply your own "test tubes and
> calipers" as you like, of course, though thus far
> you've offered little to substantiate your claim.>>
>
> I'm offering an opinion, quite a different thing. And
> I have no claim to substantiate. I could cite lines
> that I think are far from banal and you could
> disagree. I think, on the evidence, we need go no
> further than the opening lines to accomplish that.
>
> <<And beyond the frequent lapses in style there are
> also those larger questions relating to Shade's chosen
> subject matter and the philosophical pretensions of
> the piece ...>>
>
> We agree there are lapses in style. His subject
> matter--death and afterlife, the death of his
> daughter, his own encounter with near death--I have no
> quibble with any of that.
>
> <<... and the incongruity of his own work habits.
> In fact, it seems to me that Shade's the one who
> measures creativity and aesthetic value -- let alone
> personal grief -- in terms of a fixed quota of lines
> per day.>>
>
> Here you're losing me. I see no correlation between
> work habits and quality. Hemingway, for one, famously
> kept page counts; worked three hours, then knocked
> off; half a dozen #2 pencils then quit, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:39:00 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1
-4 some random notes)
>
> pynchonoid wrote:
> >
> > --- Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > Michael's explanation to
> > > Adam as being assaulted
> > > by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until
> > > you say that he's the
> > > Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it,
> > > but afterwards you're
> > > likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
> >
> > Tell it to Job.
>
> Why tell it to Job? It's nonsense! The analogy is meaningless unless
> you've not read the book in question are simply out to say that Milton's
> God or the Christian God generally is some sort of cruel and unjust
> Master who sends his angels (be these in heaven or hell) out to kick
> humans around. Well, that might make some sense if you were talking
> about some other myth, say one of the Greek myths, but this kind of
> reading of PL is nothing but crap. If you want to take the time to read
> the book (some 900 lines that might be worth comparing and
> contrasting--I'm with Jbor on the merits of PF--with Shade's poem).
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:53:39 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> > We agree there are lapses in style.
>
> What other kinds of lapses are there?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> No need to get your panties in a knot, T.
>
> Job's response to God is interesting to compare to the
> way Milton's Satan responds to God, in my opinion at
> least.
>
> Hey, why don't we organize a Paradise Lost read here
> on Pynchon-l?
>
>
> - --- Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Why tell it to Job? [...]
>
> P.S. No need to send me a copy of your posts to
> Pynchon-L, I'm happy to read them when they come
> around on the list.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:08:03 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> >>>I was the terrible racket of one
> of those gas powered edgers down the street,
> out-blasting the shadows of California sun,
> envy and calumny, and hate and pain,
> and every jealous flower the Joanzes keep up,
> on that suburban block of quiet life.<<<
>
> I will be introducing the concept of 'logotennis'
> in my presentation of the first 20 or so pages
> of the Commentary.
>
> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:42:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > There is no doubt about the entrapment of but a select few heroes --the
> > series of great and greater men from Adam to Jesus, from Milton to the a
> > few Men who will not be entrapped.
> >
>
> Oh. Well, I guess that Free Will stuff sorta confused me on Satan.
Unless
> you would care to demonstrate how Satan is entrapped by God (if that is in
> fact what you are suggesting, because your terse response leaves it
> unclear), I'd love to hear it.
>
>
> >
> > Subtle? While we don't need these comments, the plot is quite enough to
> > convince us that Satan is the evil one, we get them from the very start
> > of the drama and through out and they are not subtle.
> >
>
> Of course we need these comments, Terrance. The bardic voice that gives
us
> these asides is reminding us that, no matter how sympathetic Milton's
Satan
> may sound (especially as he laments his fallen condition and characterizes
> God as a tyrant -- don't forget the political conditions of 1667 England),
> he's not to be trusted.
>
> >
> >
> > If Milton hadn't provided this gentle appeal
> > > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
> poet is
> > > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
> s/he
> > > will heed the words.
> > >
> > > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
> >
> > Not sure what you mean, but Milton's God is a bore, an abstraction.
> > Satan is alive, is all too human.
> >
>
> God HAS to be an abstraction. No one can ever convincingly portrayed God
> (except, of course, Monty Python) because He *is* an abstraction. As far
as
> being a "bore," I agree that He's not as dynamically portrayed as Satan in
> the Milton text, but your comments don't really relate to my point:
> Milton's God has given Mankind REASON to govern FREE WILL. For Milton,
God
> made Man capable of falling and knew he would fall, but did not make him
> fall. Hence, God's greatest gift is REASON and the freedom to excercise
> that reason in the act of choice.
>
> Most readers are aware of the Christian mythology behind the Adam and Eve
> story. As a result: Milton puts the reader in the position of God in
order
> to show us that *knowing an event will happen* is not the same as *causing
> it to happen.*
>
> Like God, we know that Adam and Eve will Fall. Also like God, knowing
that
> they will fall does not mean we reached into the poem and pushed them.
Adam
> and Eve had a) Free Will, and b) the protection of adequate knowledge
(given
> to them by God Himself and, later, Raphael).
>
> No entrapment. It's called Justice.
>
> Hoping that clarifies my previous comments, I remain,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:12:54 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > Hoping that clarifies my previous comments, I remain,
> >
>
> By the way, much of what I've heretofore stated is likewise discussed, in
> depth, in:
>
> Stanley Fish, _Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost_. Cambridge:
> Harvard U
> Press, 1967.
>
> Barbara K. Lewalski, _The Life of John Milton_. Oxford: Blackwell
> Publishing, 2003.
>
>
> And, lest we forget, this discussion of Milton began when I contended that
> Shade's poem, though good, lacks a poem/reader dynamic in and of itself,
> unlike a poem such as Milton's. The poem/reader dynamic emerges when
> Kinbote begins to misinterpret it. Consequently, the poem PF achieves its
> "greatness" via Kinbote's reading of it.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Milton's God has given Mankind REASON to govern FREE WILL. For Milton,
God
> made Man capable of falling and knew he would fall, but did not make him
fall.
> Hence, God's greatest gift is REASON and the freedom to excercise that
reason
> in the act of choice.
>
> What was the choice offered? The answer is Obedience or Disobedience.
Reason
> was exactly what the Biblical God DIDN'T want. Read the story in the
Bible and
> you'll see that it was when Eve began to question God's command (at the
> serpent's prompting) using this precious reason, that she disobeyed.
Reason
> was the enemy, and Satan was the vehicle.
>
> > Most readers are aware of the Christian mythology behind the Adam and
Eve
> story. As a result: Milton puts the reader in the position of God in
order to
> show us that *knowing an event will happen* is not the same as *causing it
to
> happen.*
>
> I strongly disagree. The entire situation was of his manufacture. God
put
> Adam and Eve into an environment which he created with a big fat trap in
the
> middle of it: a temptation. Obviously he didn't inform Adam and Eve of
the
> full nature of its dangers, or their *reason* would have kept them in line
(you
> don't think they would've walked off a cliff just for the experience, do
you?).
> But then we wouldn't have a story to read.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Terence, I am supposing that you've simply missed the point here, owing
> perhaps to the way messages mutate by being repasted into other messages
> (a disaser with comic but certainly not cosmic consequences). So I suggest
> you reread Empson's critique, Milton's God (1961), which Tim was I believe
> referencing, and in which it is Snt. Michael, not God, who is being spoken
> of in Empson's metaphor, and then try this again.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> > > Tell it to Job.
> >
> > Why tell it to Job? It's nonsense! The analogy is meaningless unless
> > you've not read the book in question are simply out to say that Milton's
> > God or the Christian God generally is some sort of cruel and unjust
> > Master who sends his angels (be these in heaven or hell) out to kick
> > humans around. Well, that might make some sense if you were talking
> > about some other myth, say one of the Greek myths, but this kind of
> > reading of PL is nothing but crap. If you want to take the time to read
> > the book (some 900 lines that might be worth comparing and
> > contrasting--I'm with Jbor on the merits of PF--with Shade's poem).
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3443
> ********************************
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3443
>
> pynchon-l-digest Friday, July 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3443
>
>
>
> NPPF - What does it all mean?
> re: "They love it when you owe money"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> (14.26) "kissoff story"
> VLVL2 work (Pynchon's)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF - What does it all mean?
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
> VLVL2 (2) Friday the 13th's 'Final Girl'
> VLVL2 (2) Horror films: Art or Commodity?
> mo re Mies
> Re: VLVL2 (2) Friday the 13th's 'Final Girl'
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
> Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some
random notes)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: NPPF - What does it all mean?
>
> Patterns, mirror images, anagrams, word golf, and all other phenomena of
> transforming and discovering hidden surprises in the novel Pale Fire are
the
> ⌠texture■ that supercedes the ⌠text.⌠ For Shade (and maybe VN) this
texture is
> a reassuring hint at an overarching ⌠oneness■ or lack of total randomness
of
> the cosmos. These patterns are sought out, and there they are! Accident?
> Coincidence? Planned? Projected? If anything were to relate this NPPF
to
> Pynchon, this would be it. For Pynchon this is all a manifestation of
> ⌠paranoia■ (but They may really be out to get you). Nabakov doesn▓t give
this
> pattern-quest a name, but for him it is clearly a sign of hope, and an
> assurance of being a part of something bigger than one small life. And as
> Terrance would tell you, Religion is at the heart of it all...
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:41:16 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > But, given the purpose Fish articulates, doesn't Milton go too far in
> > making Satan so psychologically compelling, and his fall tragic? Fish's
> > argument strikes me as a justification of entrapment [...]"
>
>
> I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two dynamics
> into play. On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who,
especially
> early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
>
> "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
>
> or
>
> "He scarce had ceased when the superior Fiend
> Was moving toward the shore . . ." (I: 282-83+)
>
> or following the Debate in Hell,
>
> "Satan, whom now transcendent glory raised
> Above his fellows, with monarchal pride
> Conscious of highest worth, unmoved thus spake" (II: 426-28)
>
> the voice of the Miltonic bard is again present, reminding us, providing
> moral bearings for the reader by subtle reminders that this character is
> *not* to be trusted entirely. If Milton hadn't provided this gentle
appeal
> to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the poet
is
> guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only s/he
> will heed the words.
>
> Sorta like Milton's God. : )
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:53:23 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> on 25/7/03 10:31 PM, Malignd wrote:
>
> > I haven't lost sight, although I don't always note it,
> > of the difference between the poem as Nabokov's and
> > the poem as Shade's.
>
> I was beginning to wonder.
>
> > The poem, with (I think intended (by VN)) lapses, is
> > still far better (as Shade's) than you're giving it
> > credit for being.
>
> You're free to apply your own "test tubes and calipers" as you like, of
> course, though thus far you've offered little to substantiate your claim.
> And beyond the frequent lapses in style there are also those larger
> questions relating to Shade's chosen subject matter and the philosophical
> pretensions of the piece, and the incongruity of his own work habits. In
> fact, it seems to me that Shade's the one who measures creativity and
> aesthetic value -- let alone personal grief -- in terms of a fixed quota
of
> lines per day.
>
> best
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:52:36 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two
dynamics
> > into play.
>
> There is no doubt about the entrapment of but a select few heroes --the
> series of great and greater men from Adam to Jesus, from Milton to the a
> few Men who will not be entrapped.
>
>
> On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who, especially
> > early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> > Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> > especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> > points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> > later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> > Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
> >
> > "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> > Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
> >
> > or
>
> Subtle? While we don't need these comments, the plot is quite enough to
> convince us that Satan is the evil one, we get them from the very start
> of the drama and through out and they are not subtle.
>
>
>
> If Milton hadn't provided this gentle appeal
> > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
poet is
> > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
s/he
> > will heed the words.
> >
> > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
>
> Not sure what you mean, but Milton's God is a bore, an abstraction.
> Satan is alive, is all too human.
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:02:56 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> On Entrapment, see
>
> Phyllis Rackin's "The Role Of the Audience," SHQ 36 (1085) 262-81.
>
> The Pynchon connections are,
>
> cross dressing, reader-trap, and of course Pointsman is modeled on
> Richard II
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:05:13 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> >>> the poem achieves its greatness from the ways it is misinterpreted and
> mishandled by
> the commentator. <<<
>
> Nabokov has written a poem, then made it incredibly difficult for any
reader
> of the poem to read it on its own merits. Kinbote says he has the last
word,
> and the assertion above agrees. Of course, even if we read it
independently
> of Kinbote's offerings, we are then left with our own offerings. Our own
> forewords and commentaries. Does the poem achieve greatness from the ways
we
> mishandle and misinterpret it? Is there any value in reading the poem and
> interpreting it without Kinbote's input? Someone down the street is making
a
> terrible racket with one of those gas-powered edgers.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Tim, I don't think Milton is guilty of entrapment; I think Stanley Fish is
> offering an explanation that assumes he is. The quotations sound eerily
> Kinbotean.
>
> I don't remember much from the Empson book (Milton's God), but one
> metaphor stays with me: Michael's explanation to Adam as being assaulted
> by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until you say that he's the
> Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it, but afterwards you're
> likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Michael
>
>
> though. On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Tim Strzechowski wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But, given the purpose Fish articulates, doesn't Milton go too far in
> > > making Satan so psychologically compelling, and his fall tragic?
Fish's
> > > argument strikes me as a justification of entrapment [...]"
> >
> >
> > I don't see entrapment on Milton's part, only because he puts two
dynamics
> > into play. On the one hand, we have the character of Satan who,
especially
> > early in the epic, conveys a sense of having been wronged by the "tyrant
of
> > Heav'n," etc. But on the other hand, sporadically during the narrative
and
> > especially in the earliest Books, the voice of the bard seeps through at
key
> > points of dialogue to remind the reader of the treachery behind Satan's
(or
> > later the various fallen legions's) words. So, by sprinkling throughout
> > Satan's seemingly persuasive and honeyed speeches lines like
> >
> > "So spake th' apostate angel, though in pain,
> > Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair" (I:125-26)
> >
> > or
> >
> > "He scarce had ceased when the superior Fiend
> > Was moving toward the shore . . ." (I: 282-83+)
> >
> > or following the Debate in Hell,
> >
> > "Satan, whom now transcendent glory raised
> > Above his fellows, with monarchal pride
> > Conscious of highest worth, unmoved thus spake" (II: 426-28)
> >
> > the voice of the Miltonic bard is again present, reminding us, providing
> > moral bearings for the reader by subtle reminders that this character is
> > *not* to be trusted entirely. If Milton hadn't provided this gentle
appeal
> > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
poet is
> > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
s/he
> > will heed the words.
> >
> > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - What does it all mean?
>
> And, BTW, this all dovetails very nicely into the Bergson concepts of that
> Michael Joeseph has brought to this reading. This is really great! And I
> think it argues in favor of "no need" to resolve the puzzles and patterns
> present in PF. I think the message of PF is more about this concept of a
> Universe and Time which trancends, but as Shade tells us in the poem about
the
> fountain he saw when he was dead, the meaning of it could only make sense
to
> someone who has crossed over fully to the other side.
>
> - --- David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Patterns, mirror images, anagrams, word golf, and all other phenomena of
> transforming and discovering hidden surprises in the novel Pale Fire are
the
> ⌠texture■ that supercedes the ⌠text.⌠ For Shade (and maybe VN) this
texture is
> a reassuring hint at an overarching ⌠oneness■ or lack of total randomness
of
> the cosmos. These patterns are sought out, and there they are! Accident?
> Coincidence? Planned? Projected? If anything were to relate this NPPF
to
> Pynchon, this would be it. For Pynchon this is all a manifestation of
> ⌠paranoia■ (but They may really be out to get you). Nabakov doesn▓t give
this
> pattern-quest a name, but for him it is clearly a sign of hope, and an
> assurance of being a part of something bigger than one small life. And as
> Terrance would tell you, Religion is at the heart of it all...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> - --- Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> Michael's explanation to
> > Adam as being assaulted
> > by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until
> > you say that he's the
> > Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it,
> > but afterwards you're
> > likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
>
> Tell it to Job.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:28:34 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> I was the terrible racket of one
> of those gas powered edgers down the street,
> out-blasting the shadows of California sun,
> envy and calumny, and hate and pain,
> and every jealous flower the Joanzes keep up,
> on that suburban block of quiet life.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> <<You're free to apply your own "test tubes and
> calipers" as you like, of course, though thus far
> you've offered little to substantiate your claim.>>
>
> I'm offering an opinion, quite a different thing. And
> I have no claim to substantiate. I could cite lines
> that I think are far from banal and you could
> disagree. I think, on the evidence, we need go no
> further than the opening lines to accomplish that.
>
> <<And beyond the frequent lapses in style there are
> also those larger questions relating to Shade's chosen
> subject matter and the philosophical pretensions of
> the piece ...>>
>
> We agree there are lapses in style. His subject
> matter--death and afterlife, the death of his
> daughter, his own encounter with near death--I have no
> quibble with any of that.
>
> <<... and the incongruity of his own work habits.
> In fact, it seems to me that Shade's the one who
> measures creativity and aesthetic value -- let alone
> personal grief -- in terms of a fixed quota of lines
> per day.>>
>
> Here you're losing me. I see no correlation between
> work habits and quality. Hemingway, for one, famously
> kept page counts; worked three hours, then knocked
> off; half a dozen #2 pencils then quit, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:39:00 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1: 1
-4 some random notes)
>
> pynchonoid wrote:
> >
> > --- Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > Michael's explanation to
> > > Adam as being assaulted
> > > by a schoolyard bully who won't get off you until
> > > you say that he's the
> > > Lord God, Creator of the Universe. You might say it,
> > > but afterwards you're
> > > likely to remain unconvinced. ;)
> >
> > Tell it to Job.
>
> Why tell it to Job? It's nonsense! The analogy is meaningless unless
> you've not read the book in question are simply out to say that Milton's
> God or the Christian God generally is some sort of cruel and unjust
> Master who sends his angels (be these in heaven or hell) out to kick
> humans around. Well, that might make some sense if you were talking
> about some other myth, say one of the Greek myths, but this kind of
> reading of PL is nothing but crap. If you want to take the time to read
> the book (some 900 lines that might be worth comparing and
> contrasting--I'm with Jbor on the merits of PF--with Shade's poem).
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:53:39 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> > We agree there are lapses in style.
>
> What other kinds of lapses are there?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: pynchonoid <pynchonoid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> No need to get your panties in a knot, T.
>
> Job's response to God is interesting to compare to the
> way Milton's Satan responds to God, in my opinion at
> least.
>
> Hey, why don't we organize a Paradise Lost read here
> on Pynchon-l?
>
>
> - --- Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Why tell it to Job? [...]
>
> P.S. No need to send me a copy of your posts to
> Pynchon-L, I'm happy to read them when they come
> around on the list.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:08:03 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1: 1-4 some random notes
>
> >>>I was the terrible racket of one
> of those gas powered edgers down the street,
> out-blasting the shadows of California sun,
> envy and calumny, and hate and pain,
> and every jealous flower the Joanzes keep up,
> on that suburban block of quiet life.<<<
>
> I will be introducing the concept of 'logotennis'
> in my presentation of the first 20 or so pages
> of the Commentary.
>
> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:42:48 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > There is no doubt about the entrapment of but a select few heroes --the
> > series of great and greater men from Adam to Jesus, from Milton to the a
> > few Men who will not be entrapped.
> >
>
> Oh. Well, I guess that Free Will stuff sorta confused me on Satan.
Unless
> you would care to demonstrate how Satan is entrapped by God (if that is in
> fact what you are suggesting, because your terse response leaves it
> unclear), I'd love to hear it.
>
>
> >
> > Subtle? While we don't need these comments, the plot is quite enough to
> > convince us that Satan is the evil one, we get them from the very start
> > of the drama and through out and they are not subtle.
> >
>
> Of course we need these comments, Terrance. The bardic voice that gives
us
> these asides is reminding us that, no matter how sympathetic Milton's
Satan
> may sound (especially as he laments his fallen condition and characterizes
> God as a tyrant -- don't forget the political conditions of 1667 England),
> he's not to be trusted.
>
> >
> >
> > If Milton hadn't provided this gentle appeal
> > > to the reader's conscience (or Reason?), I'd agree with you that the
> poet is
> > > guilty of entrapment. But Milton gives the reader an "out," if only
> s/he
> > > will heed the words.
> > >
> > > Sorta like Milton's God. : )
> >
> > Not sure what you mean, but Milton's God is a bore, an abstraction.
> > Satan is alive, is all too human.
> >
>
> God HAS to be an abstraction. No one can ever convincingly portrayed God
> (except, of course, Monty Python) because He *is* an abstraction. As far
as
> being a "bore," I agree that He's not as dynamically portrayed as Satan in
> the Milton text, but your comments don't really relate to my point:
> Milton's God has given Mankind REASON to govern FREE WILL. For Milton,
God
> made Man capable of falling and knew he would fall, but did not make him
> fall. Hence, God's greatest gift is REASON and the freedom to excercise
> that reason in the act of choice.
>
> Most readers are aware of the Christian mythology behind the Adam and Eve
> story. As a result: Milton puts the reader in the position of God in
order
> to show us that *knowing an event will happen* is not the same as *causing
> it to happen.*
>
> Like God, we know that Adam and Eve will Fall. Also like God, knowing
that
> they will fall does not mean we reached into the poem and pushed them.
Adam
> and Eve had a) Free Will, and b) the protection of adequate knowledge
(given
> to them by God Himself and, later, Raphael).
>
> No entrapment. It's called Justice.
>
> Hoping that clarifies my previous comments, I remain,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:12:54 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >
> > Hoping that clarifies my previous comments, I remain,
> >
>
> By the way, much of what I've heretofore stated is likewise discussed, in
> depth, in:
>
> Stanley Fish, _Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost_. Cambridge:
> Harvard U
> Press, 1967.
>
> Barbara K. Lewalski, _The Life of John Milton_. Oxford: Blackwell
> Publishing, 2003.
>
>
> And, lest we forget, this discussion of Milton began when I contended that
> Shade's poem, though good, lacks a poem/reader dynamic in and of itself,
> unlike a poem such as Milton's. The poem/reader dynamic emerges when
> Kinbote begins to misinterpret it. Consequently, the poem PF achieves its
> "greatness" via Kinbote's reading of it.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Milton's God has given Mankind REASON to govern FREE WILL. For Milton,
God
> made Man capable of falling and knew he would fall, but did not make him
fall.
> Hence, God's greatest gift is REASON and the freedom to excercise that
reason
> in the act of choice.
>
> What was the choice offered? The answer is Obedience or Disobedience.
Reason
> was exactly what the Biblical God DIDN'T want. Read the story in the
Bible and
> you'll see that it was when Eve began to question God's command (at the
> serpent's prompting) using this precious reason, that she disobeyed.
Reason
> was the enemy, and Satan was the vehicle.
>
> > Most readers are aware of the Christian mythology behind the Adam and
Eve
> story. As a result: Milton puts the reader in the position of God in
order to
> show us that *knowing an event will happen* is not the same as *causing it
to
> happen.*
>
> I strongly disagree. The entire situation was of his manufacture. God
put
> Adam and Eve into an environment which he created with a big fat trap in
the
> middle of it: a temptation. Obviously he didn't inform Adam and Eve of
the
> full nature of its dangers, or their *reason* would have kept them in line
(you
> don't think they would've walked off a cliff just for the experience, do
you?).
> But then we wouldn't have a story to read.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Terence, I am supposing that you've simply missed the point here, owing
> perhaps to the way messages mutate by being repasted into other messages
> (a disaser with comic but certainly not cosmic consequences). So I suggest
> you reread Empson's critique, Milton's God (1961), which Tim was I believe
> referencing, and in which it is Snt. Michael, not God, who is being spoken
> of in Empson's metaphor, and then try this again.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> > > Tell it to Job.
> >
> > Why tell it to Job? It's nonsense! The analogy is meaningless unless
> > you've not read the book in question are simply out to say that Milton's
> > God or the Christian God generally is some sort of cruel and unjust
> > Master who sends his angels (be these in heaven or hell) out to kick
> > humans around. Well, that might make some sense if you were talking
> > about some other myth, say one of the Greek myths, but this kind of
> > reading of PL is nothing but crap. If you want to take the time to read
> > the book (some 900 lines that might be worth comparing and
> > contrasting--I'm with Jbor on the merits of PF--with Shade's poem).
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3443
> ********************************