Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3387
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3387
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 10 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3387
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:50:25 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> Subject: Palefire Lost
>
> Haven't been able to find my copy of PF anywhere...
> & it cannot be found in any bookstore here in Ultima
> Thule; is checked out from the Univ Library... so I
> just ordered it from Amazon UK and should receive it
> in 4-5 days. Will try to catch up with you NiPPFers
> within two weeks.
>
>
> Heikki
>
> P.S. Is the online version spotless and readable?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 10 Jul 2003 10:21:22 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 21:15, Terrance wrote:
> >
> >
> > MalignD@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea
> > > that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify
> > > with, that one can "care" about.
> > >
> > > Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling,
> > > narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not
> > > enough for you?
> > >
> > > Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did
> > > you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional
> > > effigies, Mason or Dixon?
> >
> > Not me. I don't care about anything. But I must say, it's a wonderful
> > old thread ... the idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> > fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures. And so do most
> > people who talk seriously about the art of fiction. So what's your
> > problem?
>
>
> N talks about it and takes quite a dim view of it.
>
>
>
> " . . . there it the comparatively lowly kind [of reading] which turns
> for support to the simple emotions and is of a of a definitely personal
> nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of
> emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it
> reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or
> knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a
> country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as
> part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do,
> he identifies himself with a character in the book. The lowly variety is
> not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use."
>
> Lectures on Literature, p. 4.
>
>
> A few pages earlier N sez something also of possibly interest to the
> p-list.
>
> "Can anybody be so naive as to think he or she can learn anything about
> the past from those buxom best-sellers that are hawked around by book
> clubs under the heading of historical novels? But what about the
> masterpieces? Can we rely on Jane Austen's picture of landowning England
> with baronets and landscaped grounds when all she knew was a clergyman's
> parlor? And Bleak House, that fantastic romance within a fantastic
> London, can we call it a study of London a hundred years ago? Certainly
> not. And the same holds for other such novels in this series. The truth
> is that great novels are great fairy tales--and the novels in this
> series are supreme fairly tales."
>
> p. 1-2.
>
> ------------------------------
> > ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:29:45 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: (Nabokov-free) VLVL2 epigraph
>
> Professor Dougbote writes,
>
> > A-and Big Bird is still as full of shit as a Christmas
> > goose,
>
> Man, why do you have to pick on geese? This anti-birdism of yours really
> needs to be addressed. But anyway, this will be my one and only direct
reply
> to you on this, as I have no desire to perpetuate your exasperating
> narcissism.
>
> > Instead, we're getting just what Keith asked for, a
> > reading of a Nabokov novel with no particular effort
> > to relate it to the raison d'etre (Pynchon) of this
> > discussion group. All in good fun, of course, and
> > perhaps something interesting about Pynchon will
> > eventually emerge from the Nabokov reading.
>
> Exactly! That sure gets my vote! An unrestricted reading by a bunch of
> Pynchon fans!
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:29:48 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon....?
>
>
> >And since we
> > are still in the preliminary stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that
"an
> > examination of Nabokov's influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale
> > Fire" (hence, "NPPF") will become the modus operandi for the duration of
the
> > discussion.
>
> I hope it will emerge as a topic, but to consider that *the* modus
operandi
> is to clip the waxwings of a potentially energetic and free-ranging
> discussion. I for one would have no interest in such a focused reading.
>
> Again, respectfully,
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> <<But I must say, it's a wonderful old thread ... the
> idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures.
> And so do most people who talk seriously. So what's
> your problem? >>
>
> Do you care to know my problems or would you like to
> keep this to Pale Fire?
>
> The point I'm after is that "caring," at least as I
> understand it to mean by those who have posted, means
> "having affection for," "liking," etc. which is, I
> think, a pretty depthless way to assess a character.
> Kinbote is strange and compelling and Nabokov
> psychologically complicated. To ignore that, or find
> it insufficient, because one doesn't "care" about him
> .... Sounds like Oprah.
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: (Nabokov-free) VLVL2 epigraph
>
> <<A-and Big Bird is still as full of shit as a
> Christmas goose, or perhaps he truly doesn't remember
> that this is PYNCHON-L and that the Nabokov reading
> was marketed as a project that would illuminate
> Pynchon.>>
>
> So Mrs. Millison stuffs the family goose at Christmas
> with excrement? What a lovely tradition. ("Dad's
> having seconds, Pardner! How about you?")
>
> Pale Fire being discussed on the P-list, i.e., by a
> group of people who bring a knowledge of Pynchon to
> that discussion create, inevitably and automatically,
> a shared sensibility and immediate relevance.
> Specific contrasts and connections will naturally
> arise, as has already occurred.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:44:31 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C346C7.DD2B6230
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> > As a literary community tied together by a shared love of Pynchon
> > -- and all the literary tastes he represents -- I think that a group =
> reading
> > of Pale Fire gives us a chance to renew our vitality, to apply our =
> amassed
> > intellect, crankiness, and imagination in a different but related =
> field.
> > Policing the discussion so that all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions
> > connect directly to Pynchon is a limitation that defuses any real =
> freedom of
> > communication. It dampens the expression of ideas, and it does a =
> disservice
> > to the people on the list. To engage in a literary discussion of this =
> nature
> > -- well, that's part of the reason we all joined the List, magnetized =
> by the
> > promise of Pynchon's prose. Obviously we all have some common passions =
> for
> > literature; and those passions are restless, searching, and free: we =
> are not
> > robots programmed to connect everything to Pynchon. In fact, I think =
> the
> > last week or so of PF "preliminary" has been one of the better =
> discussions
> > we've had in a while. (And again, thanks to Jasper for really getting =
> the
> > ball rolling.)
>
> I think Jasper's done an excellent job so far.
>
> However, I respectfully disagree with Quail. We're all readers here, =
> and we're all pretty big people. As such, when it's time to "rejuvenate =
> the spirit" by reading something other than Pynchon, we do so on our own =
> time. In many ways, however, this list is like an elective class we've =
> signed up for (albeit an unruly one at times), a class based on a common =
> interest, and
> reading Nabokov in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but unless it =
> somehow gets looped back to why ALL of us are here on the Pynchon list =
> to begin with, then this group reading of a Nabokov novel could have -- =
> and perhaps should have -- taken place elsewhere.
>
>
> >
> > So again, I ask you few dissenters, please stop wasting bandwidth by
> > insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP connection. For my own part, I =
> find
> > it bitterly frustrating; it only deflates my enthusiasm for both the
> > discussion and the List in general. I invite you take part in the PF
> > discussion on its own merits, or allow us to continue without censure. =
> If
> > this annoys you, you can always filter out posts beginning with NPPF.
> >
>
> As someone who is reading both books, I don't consider myself a =
> "dissenter." However, pynchonoid is correct when *reminding us* that the =
> PF read was marketed as a reading that would illuminate our =
> understanding of Pynchon. Davemarc posted a list of suggested critical =
> angles to help us obtain that goal. Vincent Maeder helped define the =
> goal of the reading by giving it its name and credo. Much discussion =
> about it ensued back in June. And since we are still in the preliminary =
> stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that "an examination of Nabokov's =
> influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale Fire" (hence, "NPPF") =
> will become the modus operandi for the duration of the discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim Strzechowski
>
>
>
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NP: Likeable characters
>
> I think that characters do not have to be "likeable" in a *personal* sense
> to enjoy a book -- I agree that this is a shallow way to approach
> literature, or any narrative.
>
> However, main characters do need to be *engaging,* and therefore
"likeable"
> as *characters,* as fictive constructions.
>
> Kinbote is unlikeable, but he is nevertheless engaging -- he captures my
> interest and fascination (as well as loathing and pity.)
>
> All of the characters in Berg's opera "Wozzeck" are essentially
unlikeable,
> but they are still engaging, and their tortured interactions are
mesmerizing
> to watch.
>
> Whereas in "Turandot," the main two characters are loathsome, and
> essentially too shallow to be engaging -- Liu alone captures my attention,
> and only the glorious the music carries me to the end. (Though the
> unlikeable Sharpless from "Butterfly" *is* rather engaging, and succeeds
as
> a character.)
>
> In another, more recent example of non-engaging characters.... In the film
> "The Hours," I found no main characters sympathetic, likeable, or
> fascinating at all; and despite the great acting, beautiful
cinematography,
> and a wonderful score, the movie failed completely for me. (In fact, I
found
> it a load of pretentious crap aimed at bourgeois, hand-wringing, white
> female East Coast liberals; crap containing a self-pitying message that
> sends feminism reeling back a few decades; but that's another story.)
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: P & N
>
> > --- Bandwraith@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It's their different reactions to nostalgia, after all, that seems to
be
> one of the more interesting lines of comparison between P &N.
>
> Yes, I agree, and also their attitudes toward the unknown, as becomes
apparent
> in the PF poem, as we'll see soon.
>
> DM
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:05:01 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> Keep cool but Care.
> About Kinbote?
> About Zoyd?
>
> In the passages Paul N. posted N is not talking about care as I
> understood FQ Morris' use of the word. Of course, as I said, this is old
> stuff, Lit-crit 101. Basic stuff. And care (substitute "interest" if it
> sounds more brainy or "sympathy" if it contends your traditional heart,
> sympathy being the term that lit-crit has used for thousands of years).
>
> Care or whatever does go to the connection between these two novels (PF
> and VL). Moreover, it goes to one of our other concern, POV.
>
> So, I see no reason to squabble over a word and neglect what may prove
> to be an interesting thread.
>
>
>
>
>
> How Authors create Care via control of a cool inside view
>
> Why does an author care if we care? Yes, I said, Care. And I said, We.
> And what I mean to say is We instead of I, because I care to keep an
> impersonal tone and because I wish to refer to people in general,
> including myself. And, because because because because because, because
> it is the wonderful word that FQ Morris has given to us. It may not be
> as brainy as "interest" or as hearty as "sympathy" but there is
> something courageous about "care." Moreover, as every cool cat knows,
> keeping one's cool while caring is takes style. Now, a dog may have his
> day, but a wagging tail, a loyal and lovable tongue lapping, a
> chocolate crumb covered mug smugly stuffed with blue jay feathers, ain't
> nothin compared with keepin it cool and carin.
>
> How does the author (N & P) create and maintain care for the
> narrator/character (Zoyd/Kinbote) despite all the crippling faults of
> their respective narrators and characters? POV?
>
> A cool Inside View.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:34:55 -0400
> From: "davemarc" <davemarc@panix.com>
> Subject: Mason and Dixon as Characters (was NPPF -- Why care about
Kinbote?)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C346CE.E70B7180
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> From: MalignD@aol.com=20
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
>
> I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea =
> that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify with, =
> that one can "care" about.
>
> Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling, =
> narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not =
> enough for you?
>
> Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did =
> you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional =
> effigies, Mason or Dixon?
>
>
> I cared about Mason and Dixon as characters. I don't agree that they're =
> "two-dimensional effigies."
>
> Regarding the issue of needing to care about characters, it simply seems =
> that some readers want that to a higher degree than others. I suppose =
> one ought to care about something in a work of fiction.
>
> d.
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: P VS N Lists
>
> This got bumped back to me, and the Waste site was down. So sorry if this
gets
> posted twice...
>
> > > --- Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Nabokov forum has a dress code. Being moderated, it has no
flames,
> which is refreshing. (What are all they all about??) But the Nabokov list
also
> lacks free-ranging discussion, and the ambience is therefore more
impersonal
> and uh stiff. No horsing around. No getting to know each other as people
over a
> beer at the end of the day.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Anyway, to summarize: over there, where the average age of the
posters is
> no doubt older than it is> here, the ground rules favor more dignity but
less
> fun.
>
> I agree with your assessment above. Also, I hate the formatting of the
posts
> as they arrive in the form of "forwards" through the mailbox of the
moderator,
> full of ">"'s preceding every line, making the posts nearly unreadable.
Just
> try reading the archives and you'll see what I mean.
>
> David Morris
> >
>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > However, I respectfully disagree with Quail. We're all readers here,
and
> we're all pretty big people. As such, when it's time to "rejuvenate the
> spirit" by reading something other than Pynchon, we do so on our own time.
In
> many ways, however, this list is like an elective class we've signed up
for
> (albeit an unruly one at times), a class based on a common interest, and
> reading Nabokov in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but unless it somehow
gets
> looped back to why ALL of us are here on the Pynchon list to begin with,
then
> this group reading of a Nabokov novel could have -- and perhaps should
have --
> taken place elsewhere.
>
> Tim, nobody elected you as the rule-maker here. I think this kind of
complaint
> only exhibits a large amount of insecurity. Hop on the insecurity
bandwagon if
> you want.
>
> > As someone who is reading both books, I don't consider myself a
"dissenter."
> However, pynchonoid is correct when *reminding us* that the PF read was
> marketed as a reading that would illuminate our understanding of Pynchon.
> Davemarc posted a list of suggested critical angles to help us obtain that
> goal. Vincent Maeder helped define the goal of the reading by giving it
its
> name and credo. Much discussion about it ensued back in June. And since we
are
> still in the preliminary stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that "an
> examination of Nabokov's influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale
Fire"
> (hence, "NPPF") will become the modus operandi for the duration of the
> discussion.
>
> Do as you will and hope for what you want. As you say "we're all pretty
big
> people," so don't try to be our nanny.
>
> David Morris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:34:14 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> >
> > N talks about it and takes quite a dim view of it.
> >
> > " . . . there it the comparatively lowly kind [of reading]
>
> In several Lectures he talks about PATHOS. Maybe the word FQ Morris had
> in mid when he wrote care.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =====
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:42:17 -0400
> From: "Betsy Yoon" <qwpoi@hotmail.com>
> Subject: lolita quote
>
> Does anyone have (or know where I can find) that quote from Lolita that
> occurrs after he sees her while pregnant, and he's driving off to quilty's
> house, and he's like 'oh lolita, even if your eyes were to fade to myopic
> fish and your breasts were to sag and your delta torn and etc. I would
still
> love you my lolita."? I am in a foreign country without access to this
> crap and I'm trying to prove a point to some reslient people.
>
> Thanks much!
>
> - -betsy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3387
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3387
>
> pynchon-l-digest Thursday, July 10 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3387
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:50:25 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> Subject: Palefire Lost
>
> Haven't been able to find my copy of PF anywhere...
> & it cannot be found in any bookstore here in Ultima
> Thule; is checked out from the Univ Library... so I
> just ordered it from Amazon UK and should receive it
> in 4-5 days. Will try to catch up with you NiPPFers
> within two weeks.
>
>
> Heikki
>
> P.S. Is the online version spotless and readable?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 10 Jul 2003 10:21:22 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 21:15, Terrance wrote:
> >
> >
> > MalignD@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea
> > > that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify
> > > with, that one can "care" about.
> > >
> > > Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling,
> > > narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not
> > > enough for you?
> > >
> > > Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did
> > > you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional
> > > effigies, Mason or Dixon?
> >
> > Not me. I don't care about anything. But I must say, it's a wonderful
> > old thread ... the idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> > fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures. And so do most
> > people who talk seriously about the art of fiction. So what's your
> > problem?
>
>
> N talks about it and takes quite a dim view of it.
>
>
>
> " . . . there it the comparatively lowly kind [of reading] which turns
> for support to the simple emotions and is of a of a definitely personal
> nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of
> emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it
> reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or
> knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a
> country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as
> part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do,
> he identifies himself with a character in the book. The lowly variety is
> not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use."
>
> Lectures on Literature, p. 4.
>
>
> A few pages earlier N sez something also of possibly interest to the
> p-list.
>
> "Can anybody be so naive as to think he or she can learn anything about
> the past from those buxom best-sellers that are hawked around by book
> clubs under the heading of historical novels? But what about the
> masterpieces? Can we rely on Jane Austen's picture of landowning England
> with baronets and landscaped grounds when all she knew was a clergyman's
> parlor? And Bleak House, that fantastic romance within a fantastic
> London, can we call it a study of London a hundred years ago? Certainly
> not. And the same holds for other such novels in this series. The truth
> is that great novels are great fairy tales--and the novels in this
> series are supreme fairly tales."
>
> p. 1-2.
>
> ------------------------------
> > ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:29:45 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: (Nabokov-free) VLVL2 epigraph
>
> Professor Dougbote writes,
>
> > A-and Big Bird is still as full of shit as a Christmas
> > goose,
>
> Man, why do you have to pick on geese? This anti-birdism of yours really
> needs to be addressed. But anyway, this will be my one and only direct
reply
> to you on this, as I have no desire to perpetuate your exasperating
> narcissism.
>
> > Instead, we're getting just what Keith asked for, a
> > reading of a Nabokov novel with no particular effort
> > to relate it to the raison d'etre (Pynchon) of this
> > discussion group. All in good fun, of course, and
> > perhaps something interesting about Pynchon will
> > eventually emerge from the Nabokov reading.
>
> Exactly! That sure gets my vote! An unrestricted reading by a bunch of
> Pynchon fans!
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:29:48 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon....?
>
>
> >And since we
> > are still in the preliminary stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that
"an
> > examination of Nabokov's influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale
> > Fire" (hence, "NPPF") will become the modus operandi for the duration of
the
> > discussion.
>
> I hope it will emerge as a topic, but to consider that *the* modus
operandi
> is to clip the waxwings of a potentially energetic and free-ranging
> discussion. I for one would have no interest in such a focused reading.
>
> Again, respectfully,
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> <<But I must say, it's a wonderful old thread ... the
> idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures.
> And so do most people who talk seriously. So what's
> your problem? >>
>
> Do you care to know my problems or would you like to
> keep this to Pale Fire?
>
> The point I'm after is that "caring," at least as I
> understand it to mean by those who have posted, means
> "having affection for," "liking," etc. which is, I
> think, a pretty depthless way to assess a character.
> Kinbote is strange and compelling and Nabokov
> psychologically complicated. To ignore that, or find
> it insufficient, because one doesn't "care" about him
> .... Sounds like Oprah.
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Malignd <malignd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: (Nabokov-free) VLVL2 epigraph
>
> <<A-and Big Bird is still as full of shit as a
> Christmas goose, or perhaps he truly doesn't remember
> that this is PYNCHON-L and that the Nabokov reading
> was marketed as a project that would illuminate
> Pynchon.>>
>
> So Mrs. Millison stuffs the family goose at Christmas
> with excrement? What a lovely tradition. ("Dad's
> having seconds, Pardner! How about you?")
>
> Pale Fire being discussed on the P-list, i.e., by a
> group of people who bring a knowledge of Pynchon to
> that discussion create, inevitably and automatically,
> a shared sensibility and immediate relevance.
> Specific contrasts and connections will naturally
> arise, as has already occurred.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:44:31 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C346C7.DD2B6230
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> > As a literary community tied together by a shared love of Pynchon
> > -- and all the literary tastes he represents -- I think that a group =
> reading
> > of Pale Fire gives us a chance to renew our vitality, to apply our =
> amassed
> > intellect, crankiness, and imagination in a different but related =
> field.
> > Policing the discussion so that all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions
> > connect directly to Pynchon is a limitation that defuses any real =
> freedom of
> > communication. It dampens the expression of ideas, and it does a =
> disservice
> > to the people on the list. To engage in a literary discussion of this =
> nature
> > -- well, that's part of the reason we all joined the List, magnetized =
> by the
> > promise of Pynchon's prose. Obviously we all have some common passions =
> for
> > literature; and those passions are restless, searching, and free: we =
> are not
> > robots programmed to connect everything to Pynchon. In fact, I think =
> the
> > last week or so of PF "preliminary" has been one of the better =
> discussions
> > we've had in a while. (And again, thanks to Jasper for really getting =
> the
> > ball rolling.)
>
> I think Jasper's done an excellent job so far.
>
> However, I respectfully disagree with Quail. We're all readers here, =
> and we're all pretty big people. As such, when it's time to "rejuvenate =
> the spirit" by reading something other than Pynchon, we do so on our own =
> time. In many ways, however, this list is like an elective class we've =
> signed up for (albeit an unruly one at times), a class based on a common =
> interest, and
> reading Nabokov in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but unless it =
> somehow gets looped back to why ALL of us are here on the Pynchon list =
> to begin with, then this group reading of a Nabokov novel could have -- =
> and perhaps should have -- taken place elsewhere.
>
>
> >
> > So again, I ask you few dissenters, please stop wasting bandwidth by
> > insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP connection. For my own part, I =
> find
> > it bitterly frustrating; it only deflates my enthusiasm for both the
> > discussion and the List in general. I invite you take part in the PF
> > discussion on its own merits, or allow us to continue without censure. =
> If
> > this annoys you, you can always filter out posts beginning with NPPF.
> >
>
> As someone who is reading both books, I don't consider myself a =
> "dissenter." However, pynchonoid is correct when *reminding us* that the =
> PF read was marketed as a reading that would illuminate our =
> understanding of Pynchon. Davemarc posted a list of suggested critical =
> angles to help us obtain that goal. Vincent Maeder helped define the =
> goal of the reading by giving it its name and credo. Much discussion =
> about it ensued back in June. And since we are still in the preliminary =
> stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that "an examination of Nabokov's =
> influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale Fire" (hence, "NPPF") =
> will become the modus operandi for the duration of the discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim Strzechowski
>
>
>
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NP: Likeable characters
>
> I think that characters do not have to be "likeable" in a *personal* sense
> to enjoy a book -- I agree that this is a shallow way to approach
> literature, or any narrative.
>
> However, main characters do need to be *engaging,* and therefore
"likeable"
> as *characters,* as fictive constructions.
>
> Kinbote is unlikeable, but he is nevertheless engaging -- he captures my
> interest and fascination (as well as loathing and pity.)
>
> All of the characters in Berg's opera "Wozzeck" are essentially
unlikeable,
> but they are still engaging, and their tortured interactions are
mesmerizing
> to watch.
>
> Whereas in "Turandot," the main two characters are loathsome, and
> essentially too shallow to be engaging -- Liu alone captures my attention,
> and only the glorious the music carries me to the end. (Though the
> unlikeable Sharpless from "Butterfly" *is* rather engaging, and succeeds
as
> a character.)
>
> In another, more recent example of non-engaging characters.... In the film
> "The Hours," I found no main characters sympathetic, likeable, or
> fascinating at all; and despite the great acting, beautiful
cinematography,
> and a wonderful score, the movie failed completely for me. (In fact, I
found
> it a load of pretentious crap aimed at bourgeois, hand-wringing, white
> female East Coast liberals; crap containing a self-pitying message that
> sends feminism reeling back a few decades; but that's another story.)
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: P & N
>
> > --- Bandwraith@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It's their different reactions to nostalgia, after all, that seems to
be
> one of the more interesting lines of comparison between P &N.
>
> Yes, I agree, and also their attitudes toward the unknown, as becomes
apparent
> in the PF poem, as we'll see soon.
>
> DM
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:05:01 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> Keep cool but Care.
> About Kinbote?
> About Zoyd?
>
> In the passages Paul N. posted N is not talking about care as I
> understood FQ Morris' use of the word. Of course, as I said, this is old
> stuff, Lit-crit 101. Basic stuff. And care (substitute "interest" if it
> sounds more brainy or "sympathy" if it contends your traditional heart,
> sympathy being the term that lit-crit has used for thousands of years).
>
> Care or whatever does go to the connection between these two novels (PF
> and VL). Moreover, it goes to one of our other concern, POV.
>
> So, I see no reason to squabble over a word and neglect what may prove
> to be an interesting thread.
>
>
>
>
>
> How Authors create Care via control of a cool inside view
>
> Why does an author care if we care? Yes, I said, Care. And I said, We.
> And what I mean to say is We instead of I, because I care to keep an
> impersonal tone and because I wish to refer to people in general,
> including myself. And, because because because because because, because
> it is the wonderful word that FQ Morris has given to us. It may not be
> as brainy as "interest" or as hearty as "sympathy" but there is
> something courageous about "care." Moreover, as every cool cat knows,
> keeping one's cool while caring is takes style. Now, a dog may have his
> day, but a wagging tail, a loyal and lovable tongue lapping, a
> chocolate crumb covered mug smugly stuffed with blue jay feathers, ain't
> nothin compared with keepin it cool and carin.
>
> How does the author (N & P) create and maintain care for the
> narrator/character (Zoyd/Kinbote) despite all the crippling faults of
> their respective narrators and characters? POV?
>
> A cool Inside View.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:34:55 -0400
> From: "davemarc" <davemarc@panix.com>
> Subject: Mason and Dixon as Characters (was NPPF -- Why care about
Kinbote?)
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> - ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C346CE.E70B7180
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> From: MalignD@aol.com=20
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
>
> I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea =
> that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify with, =
> that one can "care" about.
>
> Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling, =
> narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not =
> enough for you?
>
> Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did =
> you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional =
> effigies, Mason or Dixon?
>
>
> I cared about Mason and Dixon as characters. I don't agree that they're =
> "two-dimensional effigies."
>
> Regarding the issue of needing to care about characters, it simply seems =
> that some readers want that to a higher degree than others. I suppose =
> one ought to care about something in a work of fiction.
>
> d.
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: P VS N Lists
>
> This got bumped back to me, and the Waste site was down. So sorry if this
gets
> posted twice...
>
> > > --- Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Nabokov forum has a dress code. Being moderated, it has no
flames,
> which is refreshing. (What are all they all about??) But the Nabokov list
also
> lacks free-ranging discussion, and the ambience is therefore more
impersonal
> and uh stiff. No horsing around. No getting to know each other as people
over a
> beer at the end of the day.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Anyway, to summarize: over there, where the average age of the
posters is
> no doubt older than it is> here, the ground rules favor more dignity but
less
> fun.
>
> I agree with your assessment above. Also, I hate the formatting of the
posts
> as they arrive in the form of "forwards" through the mailbox of the
moderator,
> full of ">"'s preceding every line, making the posts nearly unreadable.
Just
> try reading the archives and you'll see what I mean.
>
> David Morris
> >
>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon . . . .?
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> > However, I respectfully disagree with Quail. We're all readers here,
and
> we're all pretty big people. As such, when it's time to "rejuvenate the
> spirit" by reading something other than Pynchon, we do so on our own time.
In
> many ways, however, this list is like an elective class we've signed up
for
> (albeit an unruly one at times), a class based on a common interest, and
> reading Nabokov in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but unless it somehow
gets
> looped back to why ALL of us are here on the Pynchon list to begin with,
then
> this group reading of a Nabokov novel could have -- and perhaps should
have --
> taken place elsewhere.
>
> Tim, nobody elected you as the rule-maker here. I think this kind of
complaint
> only exhibits a large amount of insecurity. Hop on the insecurity
bandwagon if
> you want.
>
> > As someone who is reading both books, I don't consider myself a
"dissenter."
> However, pynchonoid is correct when *reminding us* that the PF read was
> marketed as a reading that would illuminate our understanding of Pynchon.
> Davemarc posted a list of suggested critical angles to help us obtain that
> goal. Vincent Maeder helped define the goal of the reading by giving it
its
> name and credo. Much discussion about it ensued back in June. And since we
are
> still in the preliminary stages of discussing PF, I am hopeful that "an
> examination of Nabokov's influences on Pynchon through a reading of Pale
Fire"
> (hence, "NPPF") will become the modus operandi for the duration of the
> discussion.
>
> Do as you will and hope for what you want. As you say "we're all pretty
big
> people," so don't try to be our nanny.
>
> David Morris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:34:14 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> >
> > N talks about it and takes quite a dim view of it.
> >
> > " . . . there it the comparatively lowly kind [of reading]
>
> In several Lectures he talks about PATHOS. Maybe the word FQ Morris had
> in mid when he wrote care.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =====
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:42:17 -0400
> From: "Betsy Yoon" <qwpoi@hotmail.com>
> Subject: lolita quote
>
> Does anyone have (or know where I can find) that quote from Lolita that
> occurrs after he sees her while pregnant, and he's driving off to quilty's
> house, and he's like 'oh lolita, even if your eyes were to fade to myopic
> fish and your breasts were to sag and your delta torn and etc. I would
still
> love you my lolita."? I am in a foreign country without access to this
> crap and I'm trying to prove a point to some reslient people.
>
> Thanks much!
>
> - -betsy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3387
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.