Pynchonian Rorschach

Doug Millison millison at online-journalist.com
Sun Jul 6 12:27:19 CDT 1997


I' don't know who's included in this "we" besides Jules, certainly not me,
ditto for this "consensus" that Jules claims to have generated.

Perhaps "we" (a.k.a. me) could also claim "consensus" for the idea that
Jules' personal experiences with Pynchon make it impossible for Jules to
judge Pynchon's works with critical detachment or objectivity, and that
Jules is still working out -- publicly on this list and in Lineland (which
I have just finished reading) -- his 30+ year-old grievance against
Pynchon. But that would be armchair psychologizing, and I'm sure "we"
wouldn't stoop to that...

Still, it's fun to watch Jules swap ends of the telescope and add his own
subtly savage spin as he searches for ways to diminish Pynchon's artistic
accomplishments.

Neither "right or wrong" nor "historical accuracy" constitute fruitful
categories to apply to the study of fiction -- certainly not the way Jules
appears to define them. How does "right or wrong" apply to an artist's
creation?  How can a work of fiction be judged for "historical accuracy"?
Nonetheless, Pynchon's works remain rooted in history, and the questions
Pynchon raises and seeks to answer in his works carry deep moral
reverberations.

Thanks,
Doug


At 6:53 AM 7/6/97, Jules Siegel wrote:
>We're not talking about
>right or wrong but historical accuracy. We've now established that this
>doesn't apply to the works of Thomas Pynchon. I think that's a good thing
>and I'm glad that I provoked this consensus.
>


D O U G  M I L L I S O N ||||||||||||| millison at online-journalist.com
  





More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list