Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3594 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message ----- >
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:09:54 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> Just a small remark on my way back to the literary world: VN
> didn't like Faulkner at all, contemptuously referring to WF's
> novels as "corncob chronicles" - can anybody recall where he
> says that? So I surmise it is rather a "bad hat" reference...
>
>
> Heikki
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, jbor wrote:
>
> > Kinbote's note to line 181:
> >
> > ... a little pillar of library books ... they were mostly by
> > Mr Faulkner ...
> >
> > "Speaking of novels ... Proust's rough masterpiece ... "
> >
> > I suspect Nabokov would have had a healthy admiration for Faulkner, and
the
> > reference here is perhaps in the spirit of a doff of the cap.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:04:19 -0700
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:56:08 +0000
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:58:38 +0000
> From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> This just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste, especially
that
> of a snob. IMHO WF's work is far superior to that of VN.
>
> >From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> >
> >Just a small remark on my way back to the literary world: VN
> >didn't like Faulkner at all, contemptuously referring to WF's
> >novels as "corncob chronicles" - can anybody recall where he
> >says that? So I surmise it is rather a "bad hat" reference...
> >
> >Heikki
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
> http://msnmessenger-download.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:17:15 -0700
> From: "Vincent A. Maeder" <vmaeder@cycn-phx.com>
> Subject: NPPF Schedule
>
> Here is the modified NPPF schedule. If any of our upcoming contributors
> need more time (as I did last week) let me know and I will modify the
> schedule. Thank you. V.
>
> Oct. 13: pp. 174-194 through line 376 commentary - Scott Badger
>
> Oct. 20: pp. 194-215 through lines 433-434 commentary -- Bekah
>
> Oct. 27: pp. 215-235 through lines 609-614 commentary - David Morris
>
> Nov. 3: pp. 235-254 through lines 734-735 commentary -- Paul Mackin
>
> Nov. 10: pp. 254-273 through line 949 commentary - Elaine M.M. Bell and
> Terrance
>
> Nov. 17: pp. 273-301 - Heikki and Otto
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:32:15 -0700
> From: Mary Krimmel <mary@krimmel.net>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> At 10:38 AM 10/9/03 -0400, Michael Joseph wrote:
>
> ....[Husserl] did believe that no individual experiences their own
> >birth, because birth could not be related "phenomenologically" to a prior
> >experience.
>
> Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But I
> do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience? Perhaps
> it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
>
> Mary Krimmel
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> To my knowledge, Husserl didn't consider in vitro experience and the
> phenomenology of the foetus, if that is what you mean. I imagine pre-birth
> time sense would be unlike anything we know--with the possible exception
> of air travel, and maybe reading John O'Hara. Husserl talks about the
> experience of time (as past, present, and future) as a continual stream
> that underlies every act of awareness (so-called intentional acts, e.g.
> remembering, imagining, etc.), which he calls "primal prescencing." How
> would a foetus--and I guess we're talking about older foetuses, the more
> mature kind (the suave foetuses in smoking jackets sipping single malt
> mother's milk)--come to primal presencing? Does a foetus possess a
> database of post-conceptual undulations within its little developing brain
> with which it can piece together the simple narrative of time? Why
> doesn't anyone remember pre-birth stuff, then?
>
> Husserl does postulate that the transcendent I (a kind of ultimate dative)
> exists independent of primal presencing, and it's easy to think of it in
> its grand aloofness as a foetus, but you know sort of an Arthur c. Clarke
> super-foetus, not really paying attention to trivia like the passing of
> time, and, if its awareness is not formed temporally, then it dwells apart
> in a non-Husserlian universe.
>
> I'm not sure I've answered your question. Most of the recent posts are
> beyond my comprehension as well, actually, but I keep hoping.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 10:38 AM 10/9/03 -0400, Michael Joseph wrote:
> >
> > ...[Husserl] did believe that no individual experiences their own
> > >birth, because birth could not be related "phenomenologically" to a
prior
> > >experience.
> >
> > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But
I
> > do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience?
Perhaps
> > it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
> >
> > Mary Krimmel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:40:17 -0700
> From: "Vincent A. Maeder" <vmaeder@cycn-phx.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> > From: Mary Krimmel [mailto:mary@krimmel.net]
> > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But
I
> > do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience?
Perhaps
> > it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
>
> Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception (less
> obvious)? V.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Vincent A. Maeder wrote:
>
> > Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception
(less
> > obvious)? V.
>
> "Life before conception," Mr. Maeder?
>
> M.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:24:16 +0000
> From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> >From: hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi
> >
> >
> >Personally, I wouldn't say "far superior", but I do love, say, _Absalom,
> >Absalom!_ more than anything by VN and almost anything by anyone.
>
> Yes! Not to mention _Light in August_.
>
> This synopsis of Coetzee's essay on PF was very nice. I think Coetzee's
> criticism is vey insightful.
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COETZEE'S NABOKOV'S PALE FIRE AND THE PRIMACY OF ART
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:52:36 -0700
> From: Mary Krimmel <mary@krimmel.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> In the womb (obvious).
>
> Mary Krimmel
>
> At 01:40 PM 10/9/03 -0700, you wrote:
> > > From: Mary Krimmel [mailto:mary@krimmel.net]
> > > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension.
But I
> > > do remark that there is life prior to birth...
> >Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception
(less
> >obvious)? V.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
> - - - - - -
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3594
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:09:54 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> Just a small remark on my way back to the literary world: VN
> didn't like Faulkner at all, contemptuously referring to WF's
> novels as "corncob chronicles" - can anybody recall where he
> says that? So I surmise it is rather a "bad hat" reference...
>
>
> Heikki
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, jbor wrote:
>
> > Kinbote's note to line 181:
> >
> > ... a little pillar of library books ... they were mostly by
> > Mr Faulkner ...
> >
> > "Speaking of novels ... Proust's rough masterpiece ... "
> >
> > I suspect Nabokov would have had a healthy admiration for Faulkner, and
the
> > reference here is perhaps in the spirit of a doff of the cap.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:04:19 -0700
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:56:08 +0000
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:58:38 +0000
> From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> This just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste, especially
that
> of a snob. IMHO WF's work is far superior to that of VN.
>
> >From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi>
> >
> >Just a small remark on my way back to the literary world: VN
> >didn't like Faulkner at all, contemptuously referring to WF's
> >novels as "corncob chronicles" - can anybody recall where he
> >says that? So I surmise it is rather a "bad hat" reference...
> >
> >Heikki
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
> http://msnmessenger-download.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:17:15 -0700
> From: "Vincent A. Maeder" <vmaeder@cycn-phx.com>
> Subject: NPPF Schedule
>
> Here is the modified NPPF schedule. If any of our upcoming contributors
> need more time (as I did last week) let me know and I will modify the
> schedule. Thank you. V.
>
> Oct. 13: pp. 174-194 through line 376 commentary - Scott Badger
>
> Oct. 20: pp. 194-215 through lines 433-434 commentary -- Bekah
>
> Oct. 27: pp. 215-235 through lines 609-614 commentary - David Morris
>
> Nov. 3: pp. 235-254 through lines 734-735 commentary -- Paul Mackin
>
> Nov. 10: pp. 254-273 through line 949 commentary - Elaine M.M. Bell and
> Terrance
>
> Nov. 17: pp. 273-301 - Heikki and Otto
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:32:15 -0700
> From: Mary Krimmel <mary@krimmel.net>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> At 10:38 AM 10/9/03 -0400, Michael Joseph wrote:
>
> ....[Husserl] did believe that no individual experiences their own
> >birth, because birth could not be related "phenomenologically" to a prior
> >experience.
>
> Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But I
> do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience? Perhaps
> it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
>
> Mary Krimmel
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: re: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> To my knowledge, Husserl didn't consider in vitro experience and the
> phenomenology of the foetus, if that is what you mean. I imagine pre-birth
> time sense would be unlike anything we know--with the possible exception
> of air travel, and maybe reading John O'Hara. Husserl talks about the
> experience of time (as past, present, and future) as a continual stream
> that underlies every act of awareness (so-called intentional acts, e.g.
> remembering, imagining, etc.), which he calls "primal prescencing." How
> would a foetus--and I guess we're talking about older foetuses, the more
> mature kind (the suave foetuses in smoking jackets sipping single malt
> mother's milk)--come to primal presencing? Does a foetus possess a
> database of post-conceptual undulations within its little developing brain
> with which it can piece together the simple narrative of time? Why
> doesn't anyone remember pre-birth stuff, then?
>
> Husserl does postulate that the transcendent I (a kind of ultimate dative)
> exists independent of primal presencing, and it's easy to think of it in
> its grand aloofness as a foetus, but you know sort of an Arthur c. Clarke
> super-foetus, not really paying attention to trivia like the passing of
> time, and, if its awareness is not formed temporally, then it dwells apart
> in a non-Husserlian universe.
>
> I'm not sure I've answered your question. Most of the recent posts are
> beyond my comprehension as well, actually, but I keep hoping.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 10:38 AM 10/9/03 -0400, Michael Joseph wrote:
> >
> > ...[Husserl] did believe that no individual experiences their own
> > >birth, because birth could not be related "phenomenologically" to a
prior
> > >experience.
> >
> > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But
I
> > do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience?
Perhaps
> > it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
> >
> > Mary Krimmel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:40:17 -0700
> From: "Vincent A. Maeder" <vmaeder@cycn-phx.com>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> > From: Mary Krimmel [mailto:mary@krimmel.net]
> > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension. But
I
> > do remark that there is life prior to birth. Is it an experience?
Perhaps
> > it is an experience, but not one that can be related to birth?
>
> Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception (less
> obvious)? V.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Vincent A. Maeder wrote:
>
> > Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception
(less
> > obvious)? V.
>
> "Life before conception," Mr. Maeder?
>
> M.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:24:16 +0000
> From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: NPPF Faulkner and Proust
>
> >From: hraudask@sun3.oulu.fi
> >
> >
> >Personally, I wouldn't say "far superior", but I do love, say, _Absalom,
> >Absalom!_ more than anything by VN and almost anything by anyone.
>
> Yes! Not to mention _Light in August_.
>
> This synopsis of Coetzee's essay on PF was very nice. I think Coetzee's
> criticism is vey insightful.
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COETZEE'S NABOKOV'S PALE FIRE AND THE PRIMACY OF ART
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:52:36 -0700
> From: Mary Krimmel <mary@krimmel.net>
> Subject: RE: NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163
>
> In the womb (obvious).
>
> Mary Krimmel
>
> At 01:40 PM 10/9/03 -0700, you wrote:
> > > From: Mary Krimmel [mailto:mary@krimmel.net]
> > > Most of this post and other recent ones are beyond my comprehension.
But I
> > > do remark that there is life prior to birth...
> >Are you talking life in the womb (obvious) or life before conception
(less
> >obvious)? V.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
> - - - - - -
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3594
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.