MDMD[6]: Fatherhood & The Absent Author

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Casimiro Lovato-Winston writes:

[in response to a recommendation of Mailer]

> There are hierarchical reasons for liking things that more adeptly 
> emphasize the level of intellect expended to produce and appreciate them.
> Modern journalism can be done in a diverse creative manner full of genius 
> and journalistic talent but it is not what a fantastic fiction writer does. 
> Would you say that Ansel Adams had the vision of Picasso?

Why are the reasons `hierarchical'? I don't think I have seen many
hierarchies of reasons (or even reason) outside (or even inside) of a
mathematical (or theroetical scientific) system. Whatever the words
mean I take your point (I acknowledge that `your' is presumptious, it
might not be your point but one I have foisted) I take your point to
be that Pynchon's work required great intellectual effort to be
expended in its creation and equally requires effort in the reading.
Whereas, . . .  Mailer's work doesn't, at least not to the same degree
- I presume to be the required corollary. Or rather, to make the point
more generally and simply, fantastic fiction beats journalism, even
the best journalism.

Personally, I don't buy your single linear scale. Way too reductive.
And, even if I adopt your metric, I might well measure up Pynchon and
Mailer to the latter's detriment but i) I would hesitate to locate
Pynchon's work in the category `fantastic fiction' (far too simplistic
a categorization and also `fantastic' gives totally the wrong
emphasis) ii) what I (and I suspect most people) would call `fantastic
fiction' certainly does not compare favourably with the best
journalism and virtually none of it comes anywhere Mailer iii)
Mailer's style cannot simply be reduced to `journalism', in fact, to
talk of his `style' as though it is a fixed, determinate thing is a
misnomer, since it changes, sometimes radically, from book to book --
that's one of the joys of reading him and iv) comparisons and
contrasts may elucidate but rankings rarely do.

Does Ansel Adams have the vision of Picasso? Ansel Adams was
definitely a visionary, his pictures have such a strong mythic qualtiy
to them (despite their realism) he could not really be better summed
up. Picasso was too many things at once (or maybe in series) to be
fairly compared en bloc,. especially via only one attribute. Some of
his work might be described as visionary, other work not. Asking
whether one has the vision of the other is a red herring.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
We drank the blood of our enemies.
The blood of our friends, we cherished.