re- Nabokov Talking
WillL at fieldschool.com
WillL at fieldschool.com
Tue Jun 18 21:27:51 CDT 1996
Date 6/18/96
Subject re- Nabokov Talking
>From WillL
To Pynchon List
re: Nabokov Talking
First off, Steely, let me say that I always enjoy your posts, even the vaguely
bitchy ones, and now even the one that sets after me like pit bill on an
American city street. But, believe you me, next time I want to get smarty pants
about something without having it (the interview) in front of me, I'll make sure
you're on vacation or something.
(About your stating that my post was "emphatic." I'd say my post was incorrect.
YOUR posts are emphatic.)
Now, I can't really believe I'm doing this, but here is a brief and decidedly
nonemphatic defense of Mr. Wallace -- or at least a critique of the continued
pummeling of him in this space. I suppose that I felt compelled to post my
incorrect information about Nabokov (he did, by the way, do most interviews in
writing, if not this one, as Steely explains) because Steely's Nabokov post was
the latest attack on DF Wallace, and certainly the most oblique. This wonderful
list, trusty PYNCHON-L, you will recall, drove out the interesting discussion of
Wallace's actual writing several months ago, only to become the home to those
who seem pissed at the very existence of Infinite Jest, nailing him on general
grounds for being turgid, pointlessly specific, over-footnoted, onanistic,
whatever. I haven't finished IJ yet, so I won't launch into a detailed tirade,
but I can't help noting that Mr. Wallace is no less turgid, pointlessly specific
and onanistic than William Vollmann, who Steely cites as Nabokov's equal or
better. Hey, I like Vollmann too, but I'm sure that plenty of member of this
list find him no better than DFW.
Your list, though, Steely, is a delight. 'F course, you characteristically
leave no question unanswered (I have been careful to ask no questions in this
post!), and so I now have some kind of definitive Steelhead Hall of Fame. Not
quite so well read, I, but I applaud its stylistic breadth: James Crumley and
Salman Rushdie in this same list of great writers -- wonderful. Hunter Thompson
(speaking of the gloriously onanistic) and Raymond Carver simultaneously
celebrated. O Steelhead, my Steelhead, you are a wonderfully inclusive
list-maker. I really don't mind that you choose to exclude Mr. Wallace or Bill
Clinton, preferring the crankily honest Ralph Nader instead.
But, you know, here in DC where I live, where a fair number of people know Ralph
personally, where they've worked with him and fell victim to his own righteous
brand of onanism, they think, frankly, that's he's a world class asshole, even
if he has done some good and been right more often than not. Me, I'm undecided,
and I tend to favor the cranky and those of strong opinions (like Mr. Nabokov,
too), but I try to be a little more inclusive when I can. I'll finish Infinite
Jest, and even if I end up disappointed in the end, I'll try not to rant about
it too much. Wallace doesn't have his finger on the button, after all -- he's
just telling a few stories.
-- Will Layman
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list