I-it's.....Not For....Me to Say

[Dkipen at aol.com]

In a message dated 95-07-29 18:28:50 EDT, sitka at teleport.com writes:

>Maybe (Gaddis is) a
>terrible egoist.  Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the vicious
>comedy
>of JR though, does it?
>
>
Yes, actually, it does. Pynchon thinks so ("I thought at the time that
literature had nothing to do with the person writing it, when the truth turns
out to be more nearly the direct opposite," shamefully paraphrased from the
Slow Learner intro). So do I. Yes, a multitude of sins can be laid at
biographical criticism's door, and yes, the author is less important in the
grand scheme of things than the work. But not unimportant, just less. If the
author were completely irrelevant, why is this the Pynchon list instead of
the Gravity's Rainbow list? Why do we discuss GR vis-a-vis V more often than
we discuss it in conjunction with Junky? 
Why do I care about Pynchon's life as well as his work? Is it because I'm
just less evolved than all those Death-of-the-Author comedians? Or do I
persist in believing that the interface between the writer, any writer, and
his writing, has something to tell all of us -- academics and lay
narratologists alike -- about how who we are becomes what we do? 
But who am I (insert Lamont Cranston laugh here) to say?
Best 
David