Pondering Lot 49

[grip at netcom.com]

On Sat, 15 Apr 1995, Cal McInvale wrote:

> 
<omitted intro>
> 
> Now, each of the books stated in some manner that Lot 49 was the most read
> and easiest understood book of the author's works.  (This in mind, I am
> going to read Lot 49 ASAP.)  My question: Is this true?  

Perhaps. At least with its size one doesn't simply choke. (And no 
lingering indigestion!)

> I read Gravity's
> Rainbow in 1985 on the advice of a college professor who was teaching the
> book in one of his classes (I was not in the class).  I found the book to
> be dense, chock full of references and multilingual, but did not think it
> was "difficult."  

I think it's not difficult to write something difficult to read. 
(Read and make some sort of sensem that is.) Of course as one can 
"see" pictures of cows in clouds, one can "see" significance in 
just about any collection of artifacts. For instance I read Even 
Cowgirls Get the Blues after seeing a blurb on the back from TP. I 
had read Vineland before that. When I got to the place in ECGB where 
Robbin writes about the beauty of the word prairie, I thought of 
Vineland. Was TP's character named after Robbin's description? I haven't 
the foggiest notion, but the thought came to me.

The complexities that cry out for some resolution. Why this and not that.

>  In an attempt to get to know
> Pynchon's work, I started with V... and was bored near to tears.  After
> twenty pages I put the book down, never to return to it. 

I stuck with it much longer than that. I'm not sure it was worth it other 
than to lay some groundwork for parts of GR. It is the only one of his 
novels that I have not reread and have no desire to take up again.

While the puzzles are fun, I find myself looking up certain passages and 
rereading them for their poetry. The twenty odd pages of description 
after Mexico and Jessica go into a small church for a pre Christmas 
service, is such a delight I read it just as I might put on a Bach 
partita simply for the sheer joy of hearing it. (I read it out loud.)

I think it is the beauty of certain passages, buried in, well, 
perhaps less appetizing prose, that appeals to me. Then, of course, on an 
initial reading, one can hardly be unimpressed with the incredible range 
of knowledge that TP displays. It is indeed virtuosotic. One can forgive 
him for misspelling segue. (I wonder why the editor(s) didn't catch it.)
> 
> I'd appreciate your replies.
> 
You're welcome, for what it's worth.

grip