TRP Content vs Form

[dbh at mail.idt.net]

Murthy Yenamandra <yenamand at cs.umn.edu> wrote:

> As for most critics, they seem to find Pynchon interesting only for the
> postmodern quality of his fiction and not really for his concerns and
> themes - they somehow come across as wanting to empty his books of all
> meaningful content and just admire the surface (or don't pay any
> attention to what he's saying because they can't get past the surface).
> Which is the postmodern condition, I suppose, but it's still a pity.

Some modernists (usually NOT those who have come to be considered
post-modernists) have progressed beyond the romantics/symbolists vs
realists argument of "form" or "content" - what makes for art is their
interrelationship; in other words, both reflect a unified concept of
which the work is the expression.

In this regard, TRP is a master.  His "form" would not work for a
different "content."  They are part of an integrated whole.

At the same time, it should be noted that it is the nature of this
ARTISTIC whole that is unique, new, valuable.  The CONTENT ITSELF is not
original at all.  While his philosophical content is often intriguing,
his social commentary is neither interesting nor profound.  If many
critics try to avoid it, it is probably due to the difficulty they have
in believing that so interesting a thinker in so many areas puts so much
into promoting as revelation this most banal collection of social
truisms.

= DBH