Pynchon genius (let's try it again)

[Greg Montalbano]

Sorry, folks -- have a quirky keyboard.  What I was trying to say was:

Paul Macklin asks:
>Does anyone have trouble besides me with the genius of
>Pynchon concept? Is Pynchon merely text, or textuality
>(eeek), that happens to resonate for us, or is there a
>great god-given writer out there name of Thomas Pynchon
>who is so fantastically clever with words and ideas
>that the world must beat a path to his door, so to speak.

Not to be obvious, but "all of the above."  Our perception of / definition
of  genius is based on a mixture of those elements and others.

> But how well
>does our P fit the great writer syndrome of the past?
> Has Pynchon ever done anything to stake out a
>genius slot on the writing scene, besides just turning
>out good books? Does he need to, does anyone think? 

Have been musing over the same questions in regard to other writers;  are
the folks who initially impressed me as "genius writers" still worthy of
the title?  People who I used to be simply BUGFUCK over now, in their
current work, tend to make me shrug. (Dan Simmons, Donald Barthelme, Gene
Wolfe, etc).

I think it eventually comes down to CONSISTENCY.  Some folks are lucky
enough (or talented enough) to come out with a first novel that KILLS.
(William Gibson comes to mind, here).  The test or measure of genius comes
with the second, third, nth novels ... do they maintain, extend, transend
the original level of excellence?  

Applying this to your favorite writer should make it easy to determine
whether the "genius" label is appropriate.

~G~

____________________________________________________________________________
_____
"...hot & clikkin & countin thay gygers & thay menne cools uv stoan.
 Smauler & smauler thay groan with Eusa in tu the hart uv the stoan
 hart uv the dans.  Evere thing blippin & bleapin & movin in the 
 shiftin uv thay Nos.  Sum tyms bitin sum tyms bit."

                   ---RIDDLEY WALKER