Eco vs Pynchon

[Andrew Dinn]

Craig Clark writes:

Hey, welcome to the great Beethoven-Rossini debate!

> I suppose what it comes down to is that I respect and enjoy any 
> author who not only is intelligent but who also assumes that I am 
> intelligent too: intelligent enough to work hard at a text of many 
> levels and enjoy the task. It's why I think Stephen Sondheim is a 
> brilliant creator of stage musicals whereas I think Andrew Lloyd-Webber
> sucks: the former assumes I'm intelligent enough to appreciate a 
> kabuki musical about American cultural and economic imperialism in 
> Japan in the last century, intended as a critique of the Vietnam war, 
> whereas the latter assumes I want to see some nice dancing and hear 
> some pretty tunes.

Well Lloyd-Webber is neither a Beethoven or a Rossini (the nearest he
has ever got to a great tune is the Mozart manuscripts he ripped off
his best numbers from). But to my ear Sondheim has always lacked a
lyric - or rather that lyrical knack which makes say a Cole porter
song glide effortlessly where Sondheim trips and slips. If you want
someone who has both great tunes and intellectual depth I would
suggest Schoenberg who is intensely melodic whilst at teh same time
incorporating all sorts of formal, structural complexities in his
music. I know, you'll all be thinking I've gone totally potty but,
honestly, trade in your old sense of harmony for Schoenbergs souped up
permutation on the original theme and yes it really is melodic,
lyrical, songlike music. You can even hum along (or just blow the odd
accompaniment on your kazoo). Try that `Peirrot Lunaire' or the
`Serenade for Seven Instruments and Bass Voice' or even the `Suite
Opus 29'.

> I think this is true of Eco. He does expect me to have the 
> intelligence to pick up the subtle academic jokes in the text. In 
> addition, he writes passably well (or rather, his translator renders 
> him in passable prose). He is nowhere near as brilliant a writer as 
> TRP, or even as Salman Rushdie (and having just read _The Moor's last 
> Sigh_, let me say that I found it an almost exhiliratingly 
> beautifully written book). But he's definitely not the worst writer 
> around either.

Passably well just about sums it up. I was very disappointed with` The
Name of the Rose' not because I particularly disliked any of the
components - murder mystery, historical detail, religious and
philosophical overtones etc. - rather because I don't think they added
up to a fully baked whole. And the worst part was that the sweet chewy
bit, the detective novel sitting inside the book's corpse which was
meant to sugar us all up, was reduced to a thin flavourless confection
spread over a pasty, stodgy and distinctly tainted filler. Rather like
one of Brigadier Pudding's gourmet surprises. Nice recipe shame it
fell flat.

I have only read Rushdie's `Midnight's Children' almost two decades
ago the first time. I recently reread the opening 10 pages and was
utterly wowed by the smoothness and elegance of the prose, the
conceits which drive this opening scene, the careful delineation of
character and context. On the strentgh of this passage he's a great
writer. I'll have to read the whole book again when I get time and I'm
certainly looking forward to reading his other works.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.