What makes TRP's writing his?

[Wolfe, Skip]

Brian D. McCary writes:

> Which raises the quesition: What makes Pynchon's writing uniquely his?
> What characteristics should a piece have before it may properly be 
described
> as "Pynchonian"?  I know what I think of when I think of him:

> 1)    Wordplay, crosscultural puns, meanings in names, ect (see recent
posts)
> 2)    Overt theams of paranoia, and specifically cabals and coverups
> 3)    Pop Culture Hooks
> 4)    "Encyclopidic" historical and scientific referances
> 5)    Use of basic science concepts as central metephors and structuring
>               devices (entropy, ballistics, organic chemistry, ect)
> 6)    Nondeterministic story lines, the dissolution of Slothrop and V
>               being the prime but not the only examples
> 7)    Rapid stylistic intercutting (low comedy to high tragedy to
>               introspection)

In addition to these devices, or elements of his writing, there's also 
Pynchon's style (or styles) itself that makes his writing distinctly his. 
 Like Arthur Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes style, there are superficial 
features that can be copied without really capturing the essence.  In the 
few instances I've seen of people trying to imitate TRP's style (usually the 
slangy, casual, "Slothrop/Profane" style) the results have been lame.  Even 
Salmon Rushdie's review of _Vineland_ I thought faltered when he tried to 
sound like a valley-boy.

It would be interesting to try to pin down what makes this style, which 
seems like it should be easily copied, so hard to successfully imitate in 
actuality.  For instance, when Pynchon stutters on the word a-and, or uses 
the word "that" before a noun (" . . . that Mickey Rooney"), he does it 
_right_.  When others try these tricks, they often seem awkward and forced 
 -- or at least non-Pynchonian.  So what are the subtle currents in the 
prose's dynamic that tell you when to stutter and when not to?  The one 
Wanda Tinasky letter I saw seemed bogus to me in part because of [her] 
less-than-graceful use of some of these Pynchon conventions.  IMO he's also 
one of the few writers who can write unobtrusively in the present tense.

There are other things I think help define his style -- using  just the 
right verb, for instance, often eliminating the need for adverbs  --  but 
anyway, what do y'all think?

Skip Wolfe
crw4 at nip1.em.cdc.gov