Clarity, accessibility, and "academic"

[Steven Maas (CUTR)]

Jules Siegel wrote:

> It's fun. I liked V. --after certain reservations (and their amusing 
> resolution), which I will discuss later on-line for all-- but the Rest
> of his work was not my cup of tea. I am, perhaps, obsessively devoted to
> clarity and accessibility, not only as a writer, but also as a graphic
> designer. I am also unimpressed by much of what passes as "academic"
> literature and "fine" art. I think performance art and installation art
> are mostly doper hoaxes. I'm into hyper-realism and traditional
> typography.

Just because Pynchon is read and studied by academics does not make his
work "academic."  The academics on this list may disagree, but they have
no more "claim" to Pynchon's work than do others.  The thing I've never
been able to figure out is why so many people want to take a book (GR)
that's so much fun to read and turn it into work!  Talk about yer Puritan
heritage.  As for clarity and accessibility, much of GR is as clear and
accessible as Dr. Suess.  Sure there are passages that leave me wondering,
but--just like mysterious customs encountered while visiting exotic
lands--that's part of the fun.