author function

[Chris Stolz]

	I read that statement (and the M&W book) and have
counter-criticism.  The big problem with what McHoul and Wills
propose is that their textual strategy turns Pynchon's work into
little more than an excuse to discuss Theory, where one reads
Pynchon in order to return to the ideas of Derrida, etc.  While
these writers rightly claim that some of Pynchon's works'
radicalism is muted by biographical specualtion, historical
criticism, etc., one wonders how their own extremely abstract and
often self-referential arguments mark any improvement.  After
all, if one wants to discuss the ideas of derrida, why not read
Derrida?  Why flatten Pynchon into the Derridean mold?

	The fact remains that the literary artwork exists
*between* the spaces occupied by other discourses, such as
philosophy, history, biography etc.  The literary work is
propewrly understood as that which stands outside these other
ways of writing and brings them together, into a sort of
balance.  For this reason, it seems to me that Paul Coates'
criticism of Pynchon criticism-- to the effect that we critics
have failed to see how Pynchon's work is situated *between*
cultural categories, not within them-- is cogent, and especially
so refgarding McHHoul and Wills.  These two have chosen to try
and appropriate Pynchon to the demands of philosophy, much as
Socrates sought to counter the work of Homer and the other poets,
work which did not and could not be made to fit into
philosophical discourse narrowly understood.

chris

-- 
chris stolz		16 oakview pl. sw calgary ab canada t2v-3z9
cstolz at acs.ucalgary.ca	(403) 281-6794


"But you must admit that our ignorance is manifestly of a very rich 
and varied sort?" said Ulrich.


			Robert Musil, _The Man Without Qualities_