Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3444 PALE FIRE Canto I
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3444
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:33:33 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >>> 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?). <<<
>
> Has anyone seen my smokes?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:42:20 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry ... poem/read dynamic
>
> Tim, Milton aside, why do you say Shade's poem lacks a poem/reader
> dynamic? I don't ask to put you on the spot, but inasmuch as it
> strikes me as very musical and redolent of Nabokov's own ideas (as
> David and I have been discussing), and because parts of it are very
> affecting, I guess I'm willing to risk putting you on the spot (grin) to
> find out what it is I'm missing - or what it is that's missing that I'm
> not seeing.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> > 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 14:52:18 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Morris:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Your response might have just as well been written by Milton's Satan,
> because that is precisely how he viewed the choice: obedience (leading to
> mere servitude) or disobedience (leading to punishment).
>
> But recall that Milton's God says,
>
> [...] Ingrate, he [speaking of Man] had of me
> All he could have; I made him just and right,
> Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
> Such I created all th' ethereal Powers
> And Spirits, both them who stood and those who failed;
> Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
> Not free, what proof could they have giv'n sincere
> Of true allegience [...] (III: 97-104)
>
> Your argument using Eve and the exercising of her Reason doesn't really
> support your position, only because when doing so you forget that her
Reason
> was being manipulated by a lie (again, how Milton fashions the Eve/Serpent
> dialogue). It's a reasoning whose foundation is based on error -- that
> eating the fruit will make one like a God, etc. -- and all subsequent
> conclusions that Eve reaches are obviously false.
>
> For Milton (and I stress a secular reading here; not about to argue
dogma),
> reason IS a form of obedience. Obedience to a natural law. However, one
> may use reason either wisely or unwisely. When serving the unwise, man is
> little more than an animal, a creature that "obeys" but that obedience is
> predetermined, irrational, like "slavery."
>
> So ... Milton's God creates a universe in which the inhabitants have
REASON
> and FREE WILL, and also creates situations that will test those
inhabitants
> (a paradoxical situation, yes, but necessary if one is to truly have
freedom
> of choice). To make man free to choose, and at the same time not free to
> make wrong choices, would be illogical.
>
> Remember: "Reason also is choice" (III: 108)
>
>
> > I strongly disagree. The entire situation was of his manufacture.
>
> Milton's, or God's? Clarify.
>
> > 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.
>
> But Milton's God doesn't need to give more command than simply "Don't eat
> the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge." And I think God has given Adam and
Eve
> sufficient due process on the matter, considering He told them what to
> avoid, and then sends Raphael down to *tell them* exactly what will happen
> to them if they disobey (even going so far as to reveal that a wayward
angel
> will try to tempt them). Raphael even makes it pretty clear:
>
> "Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
> That thou continu'st such, owe to thyself" (V: 520-21)
>
> so the full blame rests on Eve who, knowing what would happen, still
allowed
> herself to be duped by the Serpent, and Adam, who lets Eve talk him out of
> doing the morning gardening with her (Book IX).
>
> No entrapment. It's called Justice.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> By the way, Book IX has a great set of lines:
>
> " [...] For nothing lovelier can be found
> In woman, than to study household good,
> And good works in her husband to promote." (IX: 232-34)
>
> I'm puttin' *that* on my refrigerator!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:04:06 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry ... poem/read dynamic
>
> >
> > Tim, Milton aside, why do you say Shade's poem lacks a poem/reader
> > dynamic? I don't ask to put you on the spot, but inasmuch as it
> > strikes me as very musical and redolent of Nabokov's own ideas (as
> > David and I have been discussing), and because parts of it are very
> > affecting, I guess I'm willing to risk putting you on the spot (grin) to
> > find out what it is I'm missing - or what it is that's missing that I'm
> > not seeing.
> >
>
> Putting me on the spot?? : ) I'll be happy to get on my soapbox
> regarding the Shade poem, but right now a White Sox game awaits me (and
> sorry, but baseball takes priority with my six-year-old).
>
> Let me respond to your valid question, but later tonight!
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:45:59 -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:
> >
> > Your response might have just as well been written by Milton's Satan,
because
> that is precisely how he viewed the choice: obedience (leading to mere
> servitude) or disobedience (leading to punishment).
> >
> > But recall that Milton's God says,
> >
> > [...] Ingrate, he [speaking of Man] had of me
> > All he could have; I made him just and right,
> > Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
> > Such I created all th' ethereal Powers
> > And Spirits, both them who stood and those who failed;
> > Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
> > Not free, what proof could they have giv'n sincere
> > Of true allegience [...] (III: 97-104)
>
> > Your argument using Eve and the exercising of her Reason doesn't really
> support your position, only because when doing so you forget that her
Reason
> was being manipulated by a lie (again, how Milton fashions the Eve/Serpent
> dialogue). It's a reasoning whose foundation is based on error -- that
eating
> the fruit will make one like a God, etc. -- and all subsequent conclusions
that
> Eve reaches are obviously false.
>
> Reason requires weighing and examining alternatives. Reason doesn't
require
> one to be correct, just to examine. Accepting what one is told without
> questioning is called "faith" and is often likened to being blind.
>
> > For Milton (and I stress a secular reading here; not about to argue
dogma),
> reason IS a form of obedience. Obedience to a natural law. However, one
may
> use reason either wisely or unwisely. When serving the unwise, man is
little
> more than an animal, a creature that "obeys" but that obedience is
> predetermined, irrational, like "slavery."
>
> Well I'm not arguing dogma, just the facts presented in a story, but the
story
> I've focused on is not Milton's version, but my own understanding of the
> Biblical account. So we may well be speaking across each other.
>
> > So ... Milton's God creates a universe in which the inhabitants have
REASON
> > and FREE WILL, and also creates situations that will test those
inhabitants
> > (a paradoxical situation, yes, but necessary if one is to truly have
freedom
> > of choice). To make man free to choose, and at the same time not free
to
> > make wrong choices, would be illogical.
> >
> > Remember: "Reason also is choice" (III: 108)
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Raphael even makes it pretty clear:
> >
> > "Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
> > That thou continu'st such, owe to thyself" (V: 520-21)
> >
> > so the full blame rests on Eve who, knowing what would happen, still
allowed
> herself to be duped by the Serpent, and Adam, who lets Eve talk him out of
> doing the morning gardening with her (Book IX).
>
> Like I said, I'm not really arguing Milton, but I guess I agree with his
Satan.
> Milton's God doesn't take responsibility for the beings and world that he
> created. And he could easily have fixed the mess after it happened (I
know,
> that's supposedly Jesus' job, but it come a little late). Would you put a
> child into a kitchen with an electric stovetop on at full throttle and
tell the
> child, "Don't touch that?" If the child touched it you would bear some
> responsibility.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:29:06 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> > Reason requires weighing and examining alternatives.
>
> Yes it does, and Eve fails to do this when you forgets everything she's
been
> told by God, Adam, and Raphael and allows herself to side wholly with what
> the Serpent tells her. She engages in intellectual discourse with the
> Serpent, but loses sight of what she's been told up to that point. Hence,
a
> momentary lapse of reason.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002C1W/qid%3D1059167102/sr%3D11-1
> /ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-2922103-1428818
>
> > Reason doesn't require
> > one to be correct, just to examine.
>
> To a degree, it requires both.
>
> > Accepting what one is told without
> > questioning is called "faith" and is often likened to being blind.
>
> And speaking of Lolita . . .
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056JYB/qid=1059167194/sr=2-1/ref=
> sr_2_1/002-2922103-1428818
>
> >
> > Well I'm not arguing dogma, just the facts presented in a story, but the
> story
> > I've focused on is not Milton's version, but my own understanding of the
> > Biblical account. So we may well be speaking across each other.
>
> I was just speaking for myself, actually.
>
> Yes, part of the problem here is that you are focused on the Old Testament
> account, and I'm focused on the Milton account. Significant differences,
> especially when discussing something like reader/poem dynamics. In the
OT,
> God's justice is determined by blind obedience (faith), whereas Milton
> provides subplot and additions of his own invention to establish God's due
> process and Justice.
>
> I prefer to argue Milton in this thread, because we can better avoid
> theological dogma and stick to secular literary analysis.
>
> >
> > Like I said, I'm not really arguing Milton, but I guess I agree with his
> Satan.
> > Milton's God doesn't take responsibility for the beings and world that
he
> > created.
>
> Sure He does. Milton's God provides for prelapsarian man, even when He
sees
> Satan flying toward the world (Book 3), even when he grants mankind grace,
> and even when he sends Michael to the garden after the fall (Books 11 and
> 12). Milton's God is fair and consistent. Tough love. Hard to swallow,
but
> true.
>
> > And he could easily have fixed the mess after it happened (I know,
> > that's supposedly Jesus' job, but it come a little late).
>
> He *does* fix it, David. He sends the Son. He provides all mankind with
> reason, free will, grace, etc.
>
> Would you put a
> > child into a kitchen with an electric stovetop on at full throttle and
> tell the
> > child, "Don't touch that?" If the child touched it you would bear some
> > responsibility.
> >
>
> The child in your example, I think it's fair to assume, is too young to
> fully exercise reason.
>
> Adam and Eve were fully capable of exercising that reason, and didn't.
>
> I understand your example and what you are striving to prove, but it's not
> the same as the Milton account. Your example doesn't really work, I'm
> afraid.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Kevin Troy <kevin@useless.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, MalignD wrote:
> > <<Rob Jackson:>>
> > <<... 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.
>
> I think Rob has misunderstood Kinbote's use of "daily quota" -- if you
> look carefully of Kinbote's calendar in the foreward and consult the
> commentary, you'll see that Shade sometimes wrote a little more or less on
> a given day. But granted, there is a sense of him plodding forward with
> iambic feet. (And do see Kinbote's note to lines 17 and 29.)
>
> If anything, I see Shade's workmanlike writing habits as poignant, a sign
> of his struggle to get the word out. They're the "method B" he describes
> in the beginning of Canto Four. ("Method A" reminds me a lot of the blind
> chess Luzhin enjoys so much in _The Defense_.)
>
> The debate on this point reminds me of the contrast between the passionate
> Hamlet and the workmanlike Player King.
> (scroll to bottom of
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html
> for Hamlet's soliloquoy on the subject.)
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin T.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:19:00 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> on 26/7/03 8:23 AM, Kevin Troy wrote:
>
> > I think Rob has misunderstood Kinbote's use of "daily quota" -- if you
> > look carefully of Kinbote's calendar in the foreward and consult the
> > commentary, you'll see that Shade sometimes wrote a little more or less
on
> > a given day. But granted, there is a sense of him plodding forward with
> > iambic feet. (And do see Kinbote's note to lines 17 and 29.)
> >
> > If anything, I see Shade's workmanlike writing habits as poignant, a
sign
> > of his struggle to get the word out. They're the "method B" he
describes
> > in the beginning of Canto Four. ("Method A" reminds me a lot of the
blind
> > chess Luzhin enjoys so much in _The Defense_.)
>
> My point here is that Shade's work habits, which are a prominent aspect of
> the "plot" of the novel, betray quite a mechanical or production-line
> approach to the craft. He's going to compose a "great" poem, and he's
going
> to write one card's worth (no more, no less) at each sitting, following
that
> set of balneary and self-preening routines he outlines at the start of
Canto
> Four. In terms of the erstwhile subject matter of the poem (epiphanic,
> confessional, emotionally-harrowing), it all seems rather incongruous,
quite
> cold and premeditated, even exploitative. I'll see if the "Method A",
> "Method B" and "I palpate/ Through strawberry-and-cream the gory mess/ And
> find unchanged the patch of prickliness" stuff comes across as more
poignant
> second time around, but it did strike me as incredibly silly and
> self-indulgent first time through.
>
> I think that any presumption to measure the "quality" of a poem derives
from
> the "test tube and caliper" approach Malignd scorns, and it wasn't I who
> framed the discussion in terms of whether or not Shade's 'Pale Fire' is a
> "good quality" poem. In my opinion Nabokov's objectives in creating the
poet
> and composing his poem for him, were to satirise Shade, and to parody a
> particular style of poetry. The contexts of the poem's composition and the
> content and style of the poem itself (and the interrelationships between
> these), as I read it, are what has left me with this overall impression.
> That there are occasional moments when the poetry is "good" I haven't
> denied, but these in combination with the laughably "bad" stuff actually
> serve to make the entirety even more pathetic -- if not bathetic! -- than
it
> might have been if it were just consistently "bad".
>
> best
>
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3444
> ********************************
>
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3444
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:33:33 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> >>> 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?). <<<
>
> Has anyone seen my smokes?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:42:20 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry ... poem/read dynamic
>
> Tim, Milton aside, why do you say Shade's poem lacks a poem/reader
> dynamic? I don't ask to put you on the spot, but inasmuch as it
> strikes me as very musical and redolent of Nabokov's own ideas (as
> David and I have been discussing), and because parts of it are very
> affecting, I guess I'm willing to risk putting you on the spot (grin) to
> find out what it is I'm missing - or what it is that's missing that I'm
> not seeing.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> > 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 14:52:18 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> Morris:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Your response might have just as well been written by Milton's Satan,
> because that is precisely how he viewed the choice: obedience (leading to
> mere servitude) or disobedience (leading to punishment).
>
> But recall that Milton's God says,
>
> [...] Ingrate, he [speaking of Man] had of me
> All he could have; I made him just and right,
> Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
> Such I created all th' ethereal Powers
> And Spirits, both them who stood and those who failed;
> Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
> Not free, what proof could they have giv'n sincere
> Of true allegience [...] (III: 97-104)
>
> Your argument using Eve and the exercising of her Reason doesn't really
> support your position, only because when doing so you forget that her
Reason
> was being manipulated by a lie (again, how Milton fashions the Eve/Serpent
> dialogue). It's a reasoning whose foundation is based on error -- that
> eating the fruit will make one like a God, etc. -- and all subsequent
> conclusions that Eve reaches are obviously false.
>
> For Milton (and I stress a secular reading here; not about to argue
dogma),
> reason IS a form of obedience. Obedience to a natural law. However, one
> may use reason either wisely or unwisely. When serving the unwise, man is
> little more than an animal, a creature that "obeys" but that obedience is
> predetermined, irrational, like "slavery."
>
> So ... Milton's God creates a universe in which the inhabitants have
REASON
> and FREE WILL, and also creates situations that will test those
inhabitants
> (a paradoxical situation, yes, but necessary if one is to truly have
freedom
> of choice). To make man free to choose, and at the same time not free to
> make wrong choices, would be illogical.
>
> Remember: "Reason also is choice" (III: 108)
>
>
> > I strongly disagree. The entire situation was of his manufacture.
>
> Milton's, or God's? Clarify.
>
> > 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.
>
> But Milton's God doesn't need to give more command than simply "Don't eat
> the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge." And I think God has given Adam and
Eve
> sufficient due process on the matter, considering He told them what to
> avoid, and then sends Raphael down to *tell them* exactly what will happen
> to them if they disobey (even going so far as to reveal that a wayward
angel
> will try to tempt them). Raphael even makes it pretty clear:
>
> "Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
> That thou continu'st such, owe to thyself" (V: 520-21)
>
> so the full blame rests on Eve who, knowing what would happen, still
allowed
> herself to be duped by the Serpent, and Adam, who lets Eve talk him out of
> doing the morning gardening with her (Book IX).
>
> No entrapment. It's called Justice.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> By the way, Book IX has a great set of lines:
>
> " [...] For nothing lovelier can be found
> In woman, than to study household good,
> And good works in her husband to promote." (IX: 232-34)
>
> I'm puttin' *that* on my refrigerator!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:04:06 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry ... poem/read dynamic
>
> >
> > Tim, Milton aside, why do you say Shade's poem lacks a poem/reader
> > dynamic? I don't ask to put you on the spot, but inasmuch as it
> > strikes me as very musical and redolent of Nabokov's own ideas (as
> > David and I have been discussing), and because parts of it are very
> > affecting, I guess I'm willing to risk putting you on the spot (grin) to
> > find out what it is I'm missing - or what it is that's missing that I'm
> > not seeing.
> >
>
> Putting me on the spot?? : ) I'll be happy to get on my soapbox
> regarding the Shade poem, but right now a White Sox game awaits me (and
> sorry, but baseball takes priority with my six-year-old).
>
> Let me respond to your valid question, but later tonight!
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:45:59 -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:
> >
> > Your response might have just as well been written by Milton's Satan,
because
> that is precisely how he viewed the choice: obedience (leading to mere
> servitude) or disobedience (leading to punishment).
> >
> > But recall that Milton's God says,
> >
> > [...] Ingrate, he [speaking of Man] had of me
> > All he could have; I made him just and right,
> > Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
> > Such I created all th' ethereal Powers
> > And Spirits, both them who stood and those who failed;
> > Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
> > Not free, what proof could they have giv'n sincere
> > Of true allegience [...] (III: 97-104)
>
> > Your argument using Eve and the exercising of her Reason doesn't really
> support your position, only because when doing so you forget that her
Reason
> was being manipulated by a lie (again, how Milton fashions the Eve/Serpent
> dialogue). It's a reasoning whose foundation is based on error -- that
eating
> the fruit will make one like a God, etc. -- and all subsequent conclusions
that
> Eve reaches are obviously false.
>
> Reason requires weighing and examining alternatives. Reason doesn't
require
> one to be correct, just to examine. Accepting what one is told without
> questioning is called "faith" and is often likened to being blind.
>
> > For Milton (and I stress a secular reading here; not about to argue
dogma),
> reason IS a form of obedience. Obedience to a natural law. However, one
may
> use reason either wisely or unwisely. When serving the unwise, man is
little
> more than an animal, a creature that "obeys" but that obedience is
> predetermined, irrational, like "slavery."
>
> Well I'm not arguing dogma, just the facts presented in a story, but the
story
> I've focused on is not Milton's version, but my own understanding of the
> Biblical account. So we may well be speaking across each other.
>
> > So ... Milton's God creates a universe in which the inhabitants have
REASON
> > and FREE WILL, and also creates situations that will test those
inhabitants
> > (a paradoxical situation, yes, but necessary if one is to truly have
freedom
> > of choice). To make man free to choose, and at the same time not free
to
> > make wrong choices, would be illogical.
> >
> > Remember: "Reason also is choice" (III: 108)
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Raphael even makes it pretty clear:
> >
> > "Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
> > That thou continu'st such, owe to thyself" (V: 520-21)
> >
> > so the full blame rests on Eve who, knowing what would happen, still
allowed
> herself to be duped by the Serpent, and Adam, who lets Eve talk him out of
> doing the morning gardening with her (Book IX).
>
> Like I said, I'm not really arguing Milton, but I guess I agree with his
Satan.
> Milton's God doesn't take responsibility for the beings and world that he
> created. And he could easily have fixed the mess after it happened (I
know,
> that's supposedly Jesus' job, but it come a little late). Would you put a
> child into a kitchen with an electric stovetop on at full throttle and
tell the
> child, "Don't touch that?" If the child touched it you would bear some
> responsibility.
>
> David Morris
>
> __________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:29:06 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Epic Poetry and Psychological Complexity (was NPPF Canto 1:
1-4 some random notes)
>
> > Reason requires weighing and examining alternatives.
>
> Yes it does, and Eve fails to do this when you forgets everything she's
been
> told by God, Adam, and Raphael and allows herself to side wholly with what
> the Serpent tells her. She engages in intellectual discourse with the
> Serpent, but loses sight of what she's been told up to that point. Hence,
a
> momentary lapse of reason.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002C1W/qid%3D1059167102/sr%3D11-1
> /ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-2922103-1428818
>
> > Reason doesn't require
> > one to be correct, just to examine.
>
> To a degree, it requires both.
>
> > Accepting what one is told without
> > questioning is called "faith" and is often likened to being blind.
>
> And speaking of Lolita . . .
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056JYB/qid=1059167194/sr=2-1/ref=
> sr_2_1/002-2922103-1428818
>
> >
> > Well I'm not arguing dogma, just the facts presented in a story, but the
> story
> > I've focused on is not Milton's version, but my own understanding of the
> > Biblical account. So we may well be speaking across each other.
>
> I was just speaking for myself, actually.
>
> Yes, part of the problem here is that you are focused on the Old Testament
> account, and I'm focused on the Milton account. Significant differences,
> especially when discussing something like reader/poem dynamics. In the
OT,
> God's justice is determined by blind obedience (faith), whereas Milton
> provides subplot and additions of his own invention to establish God's due
> process and Justice.
>
> I prefer to argue Milton in this thread, because we can better avoid
> theological dogma and stick to secular literary analysis.
>
> >
> > Like I said, I'm not really arguing Milton, but I guess I agree with his
> Satan.
> > Milton's God doesn't take responsibility for the beings and world that
he
> > created.
>
> Sure He does. Milton's God provides for prelapsarian man, even when He
sees
> Satan flying toward the world (Book 3), even when he grants mankind grace,
> and even when he sends Michael to the garden after the fall (Books 11 and
> 12). Milton's God is fair and consistent. Tough love. Hard to swallow,
but
> true.
>
> > And he could easily have fixed the mess after it happened (I know,
> > that's supposedly Jesus' job, but it come a little late).
>
> He *does* fix it, David. He sends the Son. He provides all mankind with
> reason, free will, grace, etc.
>
> Would you put a
> > child into a kitchen with an electric stovetop on at full throttle and
> tell the
> > child, "Don't touch that?" If the child touched it you would bear some
> > responsibility.
> >
>
> The child in your example, I think it's fair to assume, is too young to
> fully exercise reason.
>
> Adam and Eve were fully capable of exercising that reason, and didn't.
>
> I understand your example and what you are striving to prove, but it's not
> the same as the Milton account. Your example doesn't really work, I'm
> afraid.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Kevin Troy <kevin@useless.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, MalignD wrote:
> > <<Rob Jackson:>>
> > <<... 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.
>
> I think Rob has misunderstood Kinbote's use of "daily quota" -- if you
> look carefully of Kinbote's calendar in the foreward and consult the
> commentary, you'll see that Shade sometimes wrote a little more or less on
> a given day. But granted, there is a sense of him plodding forward with
> iambic feet. (And do see Kinbote's note to lines 17 and 29.)
>
> If anything, I see Shade's workmanlike writing habits as poignant, a sign
> of his struggle to get the word out. They're the "method B" he describes
> in the beginning of Canto Four. ("Method A" reminds me a lot of the blind
> chess Luzhin enjoys so much in _The Defense_.)
>
> The debate on this point reminds me of the contrast between the passionate
> Hamlet and the workmanlike Player King.
> (scroll to bottom of
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html
> for Hamlet's soliloquoy on the subject.)
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin T.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:19:00 +1000
> From: jbor <jbor@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 "smudge of ashen fluff"
>
> on 26/7/03 8:23 AM, Kevin Troy wrote:
>
> > I think Rob has misunderstood Kinbote's use of "daily quota" -- if you
> > look carefully of Kinbote's calendar in the foreward and consult the
> > commentary, you'll see that Shade sometimes wrote a little more or less
on
> > a given day. But granted, there is a sense of him plodding forward with
> > iambic feet. (And do see Kinbote's note to lines 17 and 29.)
> >
> > If anything, I see Shade's workmanlike writing habits as poignant, a
sign
> > of his struggle to get the word out. They're the "method B" he
describes
> > in the beginning of Canto Four. ("Method A" reminds me a lot of the
blind
> > chess Luzhin enjoys so much in _The Defense_.)
>
> My point here is that Shade's work habits, which are a prominent aspect of
> the "plot" of the novel, betray quite a mechanical or production-line
> approach to the craft. He's going to compose a "great" poem, and he's
going
> to write one card's worth (no more, no less) at each sitting, following
that
> set of balneary and self-preening routines he outlines at the start of
Canto
> Four. In terms of the erstwhile subject matter of the poem (epiphanic,
> confessional, emotionally-harrowing), it all seems rather incongruous,
quite
> cold and premeditated, even exploitative. I'll see if the "Method A",
> "Method B" and "I palpate/ Through strawberry-and-cream the gory mess/ And
> find unchanged the patch of prickliness" stuff comes across as more
poignant
> second time around, but it did strike me as incredibly silly and
> self-indulgent first time through.
>
> I think that any presumption to measure the "quality" of a poem derives
from
> the "test tube and caliper" approach Malignd scorns, and it wasn't I who
> framed the discussion in terms of whether or not Shade's 'Pale Fire' is a
> "good quality" poem. In my opinion Nabokov's objectives in creating the
poet
> and composing his poem for him, were to satirise Shade, and to parody a
> particular style of poetry. The contexts of the poem's composition and the
> content and style of the poem itself (and the interrelationships between
> these), as I read it, are what has left me with this overall impression.
> That there are occasional moments when the poetry is "good" I haven't
> denied, but these in combination with the laughably "bad" stuff actually
> serve to make the entirety even more pathetic -- if not bathetic! -- than
it
> might have been if it were just consistently "bad".
>
> best
>
> <http://www.pynchonoid.org/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3444
> ********************************
>