GRGR(6) Discussion Opener

[David Casseres]

Daffydh Antalyan sez

>Is this not TRP himself, twitting us for analyzing the book rather
>than reading it and, through that reading, participating in its art?

Indeed.  Actually, I think it is nevertheless perfectly valid to analyze 
a book like Gravity's Rainbow as out philosophical companions do.  It's 
fascinating and provides many an insight.

But just as we should not miss the philosophical argument, analysts 
should not miss the fundamentally literary and artistic intent of the 
book.  A philosophy text it ain't, and the artistic achievement is not a 
mere vehicle for philosophy (or for literary criticism either, of 
course).  It's well, gee, it's *art*, isn't it?

In my reading this is a *novel*, a book of narrative about human 
experience.  Since it's an encyclopedic novel, it's got all kinds of 
stuff in it:  life and death and sex and food and war (no peace really) 
and history and science and yes, philosophy.  Also characters and 
transformations and high-octane poetic imagery and always, throughout, 
informing and transforming everything, beautifully wrought prose in the 
service of profound emotional content.  Passion, no less.

And yes, philosophical conflicts provide a good deal of the novel's 
tension.  But contrast with the works of Umberto Eco we were talking 
about a while back, and you can see how much more there is here.

Cheers,
David