Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3551 Pale Fire
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3551
>
> pynchon-l-digest Tuesday, September 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3551
>
>
>
> RE: liguistic [sic] showoff
> NPPF: Charles II: Boscobel to Brighton
> Re: liguistic [sic] showoff
> Re: VLVL2 Host List -- Part 2
> VLVL(5) Why Hawaii?
> P related: Patriot Act news
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: liguistic [sic] showoff
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <fakename@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps Dmitri took David's expression literally when DM wrote "VN is
nothing
> if not a liguistic [sic] show-off," which common American vernacular is
meant
> to convey "he's *certainly* a liguistic [sic] show-off," rather than "if
he's
> not a liguistic [sic] show-off then he's nothing." I would be pretty
annoyed
> too if somebody implied my father was either a "showoff" or "nothing".
>
> But if Dimitri took it that way (the incorrect way) then he's proven he's
in no
> position to stand as an authority in literary matters, his father's or
anyone
> else's. And whether it's a good thing or bad thing to be a liguistic
[sic]
> show-off is beyond the point, since I was responding to a quote by VN
where he
> seems to imply it's a bad thing ("show-off" not being used, but referring
toreferringutous* use of facetiously flashy or grotesquely obscure
language):
>
> > "The main favor I ask of a serious critic is sufficient percepteness
to
> understand that whatever term or trope I use, my purpose is not to be
> facetiously flashy or grotesquely obscure but to express what I feel and
think
> with the utmost truthfulness and [precision]." --VN
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:38:54 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <fakename@verizon.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Charles II: Boscobel to Brighton
>
> So! Continuing this mad project of kinboting Kinbote, let's follow
Charles
> II from Boscobel to Brighton!
>
> After the lost Battle of Worcester, Charles II (the "Merry Monarch"), in
the
> company of Lord Wilmot (later Lord Rochester), and their guide Charles
> Giffard (see Griff and Garh p. 140), made their way to White Ladies Priory
> outside of Boscobel (see "Boscobel") in Shropshire County (see notes for
> Housman). This was an Augustinian Priory (see "Rose Court" p. 88)
dedicated
> to St. Leonard (see "beech trunk" p. 118), the name for which derived in
> opposition to a nearby Benedictine nunnery known as Black Ladies, and from
> the wearing of undyed habits on the part of its residents (see "alder" p.
> 116).
>
> In White Ladies Priory Charles changed his clothes into "a pair of
ordinary
> grey cloth breeches, a leather doublet and green jerkin" (1) (see "green
> jerkin" I forget where). Having sent Lord Wilmot to scout ahead in the
> direction of London, Charles was taken by Richard Penderel, a brother of
one
> of the White Ladies servants, to hide in a nearby wood (see "wodnaggen" p.
> 82, "Grindelwod" p. 105) called Spring Coppice. That night, Charles and
> Penderel, intending to find a ferry across the Severn into Wales, traveled
> to a small cottage called Hubbal Grange where they rested, ate, and
improved
> Charles' disguise.
>
> Charles then adopted the name William Jones, and he and Penderel set out
for
> Evelith Mill, near Shifnal, where the miller challenged them, forcing them
> to run and hide behind a hedge. Then they traveled to Madeley and a
> residence there called Upper House owned by Francis Woolfe, who agreed to
> shelter the king in his barn. They soon learned that all the crossings of
> the Severn were guarded by Cromwell's troops, so they decided to return to
> Boscobel House to meet up with Wilmot, but not before Charles' disguise
was
> once again improved, this time by Mrs. Woolfe, who darkened his skin with
> walnut juice. They arrived back at Boscobel around three in the morning
of
> Saturday, September 6. Charles returned to hiding in the wood while
> Penderel went to the house, finding one of Charles' officers there, Major
> William Careless.
>
> Charles and Careless climbed into a great oak nearby and hid for the
> following day (thus the legend of Charles II and the oak tree). That
night,
> Charles moved to a priest hole in the attic of the house. He left
Boscobel
> on Sunday, September 7, 1651, four days after the Battle of Worcester,
> accompanied by the Penderel brothers. They traveled to Moseley Old Hall
and
> met up again with Lord Wilmot, then to Bentley Hall where Charles changed
> his disguise into that of a serving man. Then accompanied by the daughter
> of the owner of Bentley Hall, one Jane Lane, they made their way finally
to
> Brighton where they stayed until arranging passage on a boat (a coal brig)
> called "The Surprise" (see "Gulf of Surprise" in Note to 149) owned by
> Nicholas Tettersell. (The boat was later renamed The Royal Escape.) On
> October 5th, Charles sailed to France to remain in exile in Europe for
most
> of a decade.
>
> Now, on Royal Oak Day, commonly called Restoration Day, it is customary
for
> a large bough of oak to adorn the front of the King's Head Inn in
Brighton.
>
> 1: from Charles' own account dictated to Samuel Pepys in 1680, first
> published 1766.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pepys
> http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03/sp02g10.txt
> http://www.shropshire-promotions.co.uk/L&P-7.html
> http://www.sussexhistory.com/charles_ii.htm
> http://www.yeoldesussexpages.co.uk/history/brighton/charles2.htm
>
> Jasper Fidget
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:28:55 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: liguistic [sic] showoff
>
> Jasper:
>
> > Perhaps Dmitri took David's expression literally when DM wrote "VN is
> > nothing if not a liguistic [sic] show-off," which common American
> vernacular
> > is meant to convey "he's *certainly* a liguistic [sic] show-off," rather
> > than "if he's not a liguistic [sic] show-off then he's nothing." I
would
> be
> > pretty annoyed too if somebody implied my father was either a "showoff"
or
> > "nothing".
> >
>
> Somewhat ridiculously, David Morris suggests that his assessment of VN's
> work shouldn't incur the sort of reaction it does from N-listers, and
> likewise suggests that N-listers, whom he deems "worshippers" of Nabokov,
> are somehow insecure by "bristling" at the mention of anything less than
> laudatory toward their author.
>
> Since the beginning of NPPF, I've made numerous visits to the N-List
> archives and am again and again impressed by the level of scholarship and
> discourse within their forum. Yes, the presence of a moderator makes for
a
> somewhat stuffy and near-pedantic tone amongst many of the posts, but they
> take their author quite seriously, have an obvious passion for and fluency
> with the works of their author, and as a result make for an archive that
can
> supplement nicely the student, teacher, or reader of Nabokov who wishes to
> research the archive's offerings and not be burdened with extraneous,
> irrelevant rants. (BTW, if anyone wishes to "bristle" at the comparison of
> the two list forums, only remember that it was certain P-listers who chose
> to bring the N-list to *us*.)
>
> Similarly, I don't find the oft-repeated "liguistic [sic]" the "childish"
> item Mr. Morris would like us to believe. In his post, Dmitri is making
> obvious reference to the paradox of assessing VN's linguistic skills
without
> attention to one's own, a turn of irony that seems to perhaps escape some
> folks. As someone who has lived with, known, and read the author in
question
> since youth, Dmitri is a far closer and more intimate resource for the
study
> of N than anyone on the P-list can ever hope for in our own author's
> lifetime. Although it may not seem valid to ALL readers here, methinks
> *that*, to a degree, at least deserves respect.
>
> While many of us on the P-list may not adore everything P's written, it's
> pretty safe to assume that if someone came into this forum and expressed
> "pale admiration" for, say, GR, there would undoubtedly be some cries of
> contention in support of the work. It's quite unfair to dismiss N support
> as "worshippers" who "bristle at the slightest criticism of Nabokov";
> frankly, I'd be quite surprised if they *didn't* support their author.
> Nabokov is the very reason they subscribe to their List.
>
> Supposedly, Pynchon is the reason we're here.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong ...
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim Strzechowski
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 Host List -- Part 2
>
> Regardless of the fine points of scheduling ...
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Nov. 17: pp. 153 - 191 -- Dave Monroe
> >
> >
> > Dec. 1: pp. 192 - 203 -- Tim Strzechowski
> >
> >
> > Dec. 15: pp. 204 - 217 --
> >
> >
> > Dec. 29: pp. 218 - 238 --
> >
> >
> > January 12: pp. 239 - 267 --
> >
> >
> > January 26: pp. 268 - 293 --
> >
> >
> > Feb. 9: pp. 294 - 322 --
> >
> >
> > Feb. 23: pp. 323 - 342 --
> >
> >
> > March 8: pp. 343 - 362 --
> >
> >
> > March 22: pp. 363 - 385 --
> >
> >
> > If we decide to adjust the schedule for a "Holiday
> > Hiatus," only the dates will change....
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3551
> ********************************
>
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3551
>
> pynchon-l-digest Tuesday, September 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number
3551
>
>
>
> RE: liguistic [sic] showoff
> NPPF: Charles II: Boscobel to Brighton
> Re: liguistic [sic] showoff
> Re: VLVL2 Host List -- Part 2
> VLVL(5) Why Hawaii?
> P related: Patriot Act news
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Morris <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: liguistic [sic] showoff
>
> - --- Jasper Fidget <fakename@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps Dmitri took David's expression literally when DM wrote "VN is
nothing
> if not a liguistic [sic] show-off," which common American vernacular is
meant
> to convey "he's *certainly* a liguistic [sic] show-off," rather than "if
he's
> not a liguistic [sic] show-off then he's nothing." I would be pretty
annoyed
> too if somebody implied my father was either a "showoff" or "nothing".
>
> But if Dimitri took it that way (the incorrect way) then he's proven he's
in no
> position to stand as an authority in literary matters, his father's or
anyone
> else's. And whether it's a good thing or bad thing to be a liguistic
[sic]
> show-off is beyond the point, since I was responding to a quote by VN
where he
> seems to imply it's a bad thing ("show-off" not being used, but referring
toreferringutous* use of facetiously flashy or grotesquely obscure
language):
>
> > "The main favor I ask of a serious critic is sufficient percepteness
to
> understand that whatever term or trope I use, my purpose is not to be
> facetiously flashy or grotesquely obscure but to express what I feel and
think
> with the utmost truthfulness and [precision]." --VN
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:38:54 -0400
> From: "Jasper Fidget" <fakename@verizon.net>
> Subject: NPPF: Charles II: Boscobel to Brighton
>
> So! Continuing this mad project of kinboting Kinbote, let's follow
Charles
> II from Boscobel to Brighton!
>
> After the lost Battle of Worcester, Charles II (the "Merry Monarch"), in
the
> company of Lord Wilmot (later Lord Rochester), and their guide Charles
> Giffard (see Griff and Garh p. 140), made their way to White Ladies Priory
> outside of Boscobel (see "Boscobel") in Shropshire County (see notes for
> Housman). This was an Augustinian Priory (see "Rose Court" p. 88)
dedicated
> to St. Leonard (see "beech trunk" p. 118), the name for which derived in
> opposition to a nearby Benedictine nunnery known as Black Ladies, and from
> the wearing of undyed habits on the part of its residents (see "alder" p.
> 116).
>
> In White Ladies Priory Charles changed his clothes into "a pair of
ordinary
> grey cloth breeches, a leather doublet and green jerkin" (1) (see "green
> jerkin" I forget where). Having sent Lord Wilmot to scout ahead in the
> direction of London, Charles was taken by Richard Penderel, a brother of
one
> of the White Ladies servants, to hide in a nearby wood (see "wodnaggen" p.
> 82, "Grindelwod" p. 105) called Spring Coppice. That night, Charles and
> Penderel, intending to find a ferry across the Severn into Wales, traveled
> to a small cottage called Hubbal Grange where they rested, ate, and
improved
> Charles' disguise.
>
> Charles then adopted the name William Jones, and he and Penderel set out
for
> Evelith Mill, near Shifnal, where the miller challenged them, forcing them
> to run and hide behind a hedge. Then they traveled to Madeley and a
> residence there called Upper House owned by Francis Woolfe, who agreed to
> shelter the king in his barn. They soon learned that all the crossings of
> the Severn were guarded by Cromwell's troops, so they decided to return to
> Boscobel House to meet up with Wilmot, but not before Charles' disguise
was
> once again improved, this time by Mrs. Woolfe, who darkened his skin with
> walnut juice. They arrived back at Boscobel around three in the morning
of
> Saturday, September 6. Charles returned to hiding in the wood while
> Penderel went to the house, finding one of Charles' officers there, Major
> William Careless.
>
> Charles and Careless climbed into a great oak nearby and hid for the
> following day (thus the legend of Charles II and the oak tree). That
night,
> Charles moved to a priest hole in the attic of the house. He left
Boscobel
> on Sunday, September 7, 1651, four days after the Battle of Worcester,
> accompanied by the Penderel brothers. They traveled to Moseley Old Hall
and
> met up again with Lord Wilmot, then to Bentley Hall where Charles changed
> his disguise into that of a serving man. Then accompanied by the daughter
> of the owner of Bentley Hall, one Jane Lane, they made their way finally
to
> Brighton where they stayed until arranging passage on a boat (a coal brig)
> called "The Surprise" (see "Gulf of Surprise" in Note to 149) owned by
> Nicholas Tettersell. (The boat was later renamed The Royal Escape.) On
> October 5th, Charles sailed to France to remain in exile in Europe for
most
> of a decade.
>
> Now, on Royal Oak Day, commonly called Restoration Day, it is customary
for
> a large bough of oak to adorn the front of the King's Head Inn in
Brighton.
>
> 1: from Charles' own account dictated to Samuel Pepys in 1680, first
> published 1766.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pepys
> http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03/sp02g10.txt
> http://www.shropshire-promotions.co.uk/L&P-7.html
> http://www.sussexhistory.com/charles_ii.htm
> http://www.yeoldesussexpages.co.uk/history/brighton/charles2.htm
>
> Jasper Fidget
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:28:55 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: liguistic [sic] showoff
>
> Jasper:
>
> > Perhaps Dmitri took David's expression literally when DM wrote "VN is
> > nothing if not a liguistic [sic] show-off," which common American
> vernacular
> > is meant to convey "he's *certainly* a liguistic [sic] show-off," rather
> > than "if he's not a liguistic [sic] show-off then he's nothing." I
would
> be
> > pretty annoyed too if somebody implied my father was either a "showoff"
or
> > "nothing".
> >
>
> Somewhat ridiculously, David Morris suggests that his assessment of VN's
> work shouldn't incur the sort of reaction it does from N-listers, and
> likewise suggests that N-listers, whom he deems "worshippers" of Nabokov,
> are somehow insecure by "bristling" at the mention of anything less than
> laudatory toward their author.
>
> Since the beginning of NPPF, I've made numerous visits to the N-List
> archives and am again and again impressed by the level of scholarship and
> discourse within their forum. Yes, the presence of a moderator makes for
a
> somewhat stuffy and near-pedantic tone amongst many of the posts, but they
> take their author quite seriously, have an obvious passion for and fluency
> with the works of their author, and as a result make for an archive that
can
> supplement nicely the student, teacher, or reader of Nabokov who wishes to
> research the archive's offerings and not be burdened with extraneous,
> irrelevant rants. (BTW, if anyone wishes to "bristle" at the comparison of
> the two list forums, only remember that it was certain P-listers who chose
> to bring the N-list to *us*.)
>
> Similarly, I don't find the oft-repeated "liguistic [sic]" the "childish"
> item Mr. Morris would like us to believe. In his post, Dmitri is making
> obvious reference to the paradox of assessing VN's linguistic skills
without
> attention to one's own, a turn of irony that seems to perhaps escape some
> folks. As someone who has lived with, known, and read the author in
question
> since youth, Dmitri is a far closer and more intimate resource for the
study
> of N than anyone on the P-list can ever hope for in our own author's
> lifetime. Although it may not seem valid to ALL readers here, methinks
> *that*, to a degree, at least deserves respect.
>
> While many of us on the P-list may not adore everything P's written, it's
> pretty safe to assume that if someone came into this forum and expressed
> "pale admiration" for, say, GR, there would undoubtedly be some cries of
> contention in support of the work. It's quite unfair to dismiss N support
> as "worshippers" who "bristle at the slightest criticism of Nabokov";
> frankly, I'd be quite surprised if they *didn't* support their author.
> Nabokov is the very reason they subscribe to their List.
>
> Supposedly, Pynchon is the reason we're here.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong ...
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Tim Strzechowski
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Monroe <monrovius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: VLVL2 Host List -- Part 2
>
> Regardless of the fine points of scheduling ...
>
> - --- Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Nov. 17: pp. 153 - 191 -- Dave Monroe
> >
> >
> > Dec. 1: pp. 192 - 203 -- Tim Strzechowski
> >
> >
> > Dec. 15: pp. 204 - 217 --
> >
> >
> > Dec. 29: pp. 218 - 238 --
> >
> >
> > January 12: pp. 239 - 267 --
> >
> >
> > January 26: pp. 268 - 293 --
> >
> >
> > Feb. 9: pp. 294 - 322 --
> >
> >
> > Feb. 23: pp. 323 - 342 --
> >
> >
> > March 8: pp. 343 - 362 --
> >
> >
> > March 22: pp. 363 - 385 --
> >
> >
> > If we decide to adjust the schedule for a "Holiday
> > Hiatus," only the dates will change....
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3551
> ********************************
>