Eco vs Pynchon

[Henry M]

Oh, yeah. Eco is "interesting" and complex and I pat myself on the back when I 
recognize what little I do. Much more than Pynchon, Eco Requires 
arcane knowledge. Pynchon can be read rather well we a normal 
undergraduate education. The man <LOL> even educates me a little and, 
without actual footnotes, lets me know where to get further 
information. Perhaps a game from Eco might be: Non-Trivial Pursuit.

On 24 Oct 96 at 9:06, Craig Clark wrote:

> From:          "Craig Clark" <CLARK at SHEPFS2.UND.AC.ZA>
> To:            pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date:          Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:06:26 GMT+0200
> Subject:       Re: Eco vs Pynchon
> Priority:      normal

> Henry Musikar <gravity at dcez.nicom.com> writes:
> 
> > This has begun to make me think of the Rossini vs. Webern argument
> > in GR. Yes, Eco "does something intelligent," but is intelligence
> > all that we admire/enjoy in a writer. I/was Brando an
> > "intelligent" actor?
> 
> On the Brando question I'll just simply say "Yes" and leave it at
> that, but I think Henry's other question - "is intelligence all that
> we admire/enjoy in a writer?" - deserves a better answer.
> 
> Obviously it is not. I dare say there are a number of highly 
> intelligent writers of schlock out there whose work I wouldn't
> normally bother reading. But I believe a case can be made for Eco
> going a step beyond being merely "an intelligent writer" to what one
> might call "writing with intelligence". To take just one example
> from what I still believe to be his finest work: The year before I
> read _The Name of the Rose_ I had occasion to spend three months
> doing research into medieval allegorical convention. Inter alia I
> found myself investigating the way medieval authors would read a
> Christian allegory into non-allegorical and pre-Christian texts such
> as the _Odyssey_. Armed with that body of knowledge I was delighted
> to discover that Eco was writing a non-Christian and non-Allegorical
> text which could also be read as a Christian allegory: and which is,
> dammit, largely concerned with medieval ideas about the reading and
> deciphering of texts.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Craig Clark
> 
> "Living inside the system is like driving across
> the countryside in a bus driven by a maniac bent
> on suicide."
>    - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
> 

Keep Cool, but care. -- TRP
http://www.nicom.com/~gravity