From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 03:03:24 BST
dmb said:
... the quotes you dismiss as "hyperbole" are meant to answer the central
question about the novel's title character.
Steve:
I'v explained how I interpret them as well as what's wrong with your
interpretation. I haven't dismissed these quotes at all.
dmb says:
Yikes. I guess we'll have to disagree about that too. The quotes say
intellectual values are beyond her range. You say the opposite. And your
reason for this contradiction? Its a novel. Its hyperbolic. He and his
editors didn't really mean it. I think this is no reason at all and that
this unjustified and unreasonable contradiction constitutes a dismissal.
Sorry.
Steve said:
Really? Everything? Literally EVERYTHING? Are you absolutely sure ther's
no hyperbole in there?
dmb says:
Is American English your first language? I'd characterize his comments as
neither literal nor hyperbolic. I think the language in those quotes is a
bit unequivocal, but mostly the tone is casual. You know, he's uning images
like splitting watermelons and talking about things outside her range. In
any case, I honestly don't see how these assertions can be so easily undone
by this kind of "literary" criticism.
Steve said:
The forest of static patterns that constitute Lila include pretty good
biological patterns, pretty bad social patterns, and horrible intellectual
patterns.
dmb says:
Pirsig says "she doesn't see intellectual quality at all" and you say she
does, but only the "horrible" intellectual patterns? OK. Pretending for the
moment that there is such a thing as pretty bad values or horrible quality,
you're still just contradicting Pirsig. Sure, there is always room for a
variety of good interpretations, but this is just a contradiction. He says
she ain't got none and you insist that she does. Calling them "horrible"
doesn't change that.
Steve said:
Actually, I don't think you think in terms of patterns at all though you
claim that you do. I still think your confusion lies in thinking of fitting
these quotes into a 'types of people' interpretation of the MOQ levels which
is completely inappropriate here.
dmb says:
Inappropriate?! Fitting these quotes into a 'types of people'
interpretation?! Dude, I think you're the one who is confused here. That is
what the author does throughout the book and that's exactly what he's doing
in the quotes! He's answering the central question about the title
character. He's talking about his evolutionary morality in terms of a
specific person. "Does Lila have quality?" Why do people have different
perceptions of quality? Why does she fail to see how tacky and fake that
boat is? Why does Rigel fail to see any quality in Lila, while the Captain
saw that she did? Not to mention the countless examples of historical
persons... Steve, you've not really addressed my objection and I think its a
pretty big one.
If these quotes are answers to the novel's main question, don't you think we
should require extraordinary reasons and evidence to contradict them? Or is
Pirsig really such a hack that he would blunder on one of the central points
of the book? Do you really imagine he would spend so much time and energy
setting up the question and then produce some flip answer that he didn't
really mean? Sorry, but I think your "interpretation" ridiculous. You
haven't given us one good reason why anyone should think Pirsig means she
does when he says she doesn't.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 27 2003 - 03:05:02 BST