ROGER IS INTRIGUED BY DAVID's SPLIT 'PIRSIGNALITY'
To David T. and Rich and Lilacs Everywhere:
Rich and I had recently discussed the same thing that David references:
>Why is the narrator, in both books, telling the tale? Because Phaedrus is
>no
>longer with us. Did Phaedrus's bias for the "dynamic" lead his demise? Did
>Lila oblivious possession by DQ lead to hers? After Phaedrus's quest
>ends in that Chicago room it is the narrator who builds the static
>intellectual pattern that is the MoQ from the shards. It is the narrator who
>finds the those little digestible slivers of DQ in the preponderance static
>qualities that is motorcycle maintenance.
What was the purpose of continuing the split personality in Lila? The end of
ZMM was supposed to be the re-merging of the two, no? Is it to separate the
static intellectual from the dynamic and mystical? Does it separate the
immediate experience from the static reproductions of the past? And if the
answer is even close to yes on either Q, then which is which?
One final question.....Plot-wise, are the books very accurate at all? How
much of each is fiction vs truth? Did he really go to Chicago University?
Did he really take a boat trip? Go insane?
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST