Hi all,
I think that Andreas needs more support with the very slow reading.
(I hope I'm not spoiling it by rushing on to paragraph two in the latter
part of this post).
DAVID B. is giving us mixed messages about the weight of meaning in the
first sentence.
<<<Basically, I think that the first two [the first sentence and
"over-ripeness"] are relatively unimportant compared to the third
[Orion]. >>>
David is welcome to his preference for discussing Orion, but his
reasoning is self contradictory.
<<<The first sentence of a novel has a certain function. Pirsig isn't
going to
load the first sentence with anymore cryptic meaning than he has to. The
first sentence has a huge job and responsability as it is. Its got to be
one
of the hardest lines to write and has to engage the reader. That's why
is
raises so many questions, so the reader might be propelled by curiosity.
It
has to intice the reader with a glimpse of the opening scene. It is the
first frame of the first shot in a full-length movie. Its got alot to
do....>>>
Till here, I agree. Lots of reasons why the first sentence is worth a
second (and third and fourth) look.
<<<And so its meaning has to be relatively straight-forward and clear.
Its just
another way to put these things in the proper context...>>>
Let's drop the pejorative "just another". The first sentence has to put
MANY things into the proper context. The novel operates on a number of
levels, so there may be a hint of this in the first sentence (as is
already becoming clear from the discussion).
However, I must yet again draw attention to the very first word "Lila".
I find it very hard to believe that Pirsig had never heard the word in
its Hindu context after his years of philosophical study including a
long stretch in India. He didn't exactly push out Lila the novel in any
great hurry, and I assume that he wrote it with a great deal of care (it
certainly looks that way). For Pirsig to have simply "overlooked" the
Hindu meaning of Lila would indicate uncharacteristic carelessness (to
RMP, if you are reading this, I apologise if this looks offensive
because it isn't intended to be).
KEITH claimed not to see my "solipsism" point, but then goes on with a
GOOD post about dreams, pointing out that Lila's "fearful dream" in the
second sentence is the first of 23(!) dreams mentioned in the novel. I
think that there's a strong conceptual link between dreams and
solipsism, and this is going to keep coming up throughout the novel.
Now let me "fast forward" to paragraph two. Lila is presented as "softly
cherubic, like a small girl with blond hair, wide cheekbones, a small
turned-up nose, and a common child's face that seemed o familiar it
attracted a certain natural affection."
There's nothing new about Lila. She is a picture that we can see a
thousand times and still love. Pirsig is showing us the GOOD in the
familiar.
The very next sentence continues the theme:
"He got the feeling that when morning came she shouldd pop open her
sky-blue eyes and they should sparkle with excitement at the prospect of
a new day of sunlight and parents smiling and maybe bacon cooking on the
stove and happiness everywhere".
As a parent, I appreciate that (not the bacon though;-)
Things don't have to be unique or "special" to be good. Don't we all
appreciate (and even crave) things that we've enjoyed countless times
before - the everyday foods served on a thousand kitchen tables, the ten
thousandth kiss from a loved one? As several contributors like to remind
us, "IT'S ALL GOOD"
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT