To be taken to task for a turn of phrase by someone whose work I've long admired leaves me feeling a little bit like the kitten who's lost her mitten and so shall have no pie. I regret that the opening of my essay left Steven Weisenburger facing both barrels of a volley I meant to fire more broadly. As the most ambitious and visible of the industry's indices, annotations and cross-references, the Companion no doubt catches it oftener than it merits. In my defense, though, there are other types of terrorism than the Taliban variety–and these often more insidious–as anyone who for one reason or another lives outside one or more consumer loops in the United States might readily attest. I had thought that exposing the rich variety of pressures exerted on the average poor bastard to limit his/her behavior and options–and the APB's complicity in this maneuver (as I suggested in my essay)–was a thread that ran throughout Pynchon's novels and other writings.
How to Cite:
Schaechterle Loranger, C., (1999). Response to Steven Weisenburger's Response. Pynchon Notes. (44-45), pp.171–172. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16995/pn.126