No fawning P-cultie, I

[Steven Maas (CUTR)]

doktor Jimmy suggests that V and CoL49 are both overall better books than
GR, and that they are more likely to be read in 100 years that is GR. 
Although as he says, the majority of Pynch-posts to the list concern GR,
he is not the first to suggest that V and/or CoL49 are superior. 

I don't know about others on the list who rate GR on top (in my case, it's
my all-time favorite book), but for me, I can sum up my preference easily
(without even mentioning the obvious, i.e., the general profundity of the
book)--of all books I've ever read (admittedly a pitiably small percentage
of the total!) GR is the one that comes closest to meeting the ole "desert
isle" test--that is, I could read it over and over and not get bored.  For
me, V and CoL49 (good books both) wouldn't hold up as well.  As for what
people will read in 100 years...well that's anybody's guess, I guess. 
My guess is. . .GR!

	Steve Maas

On Tue, 4 Mar 1997 doktor at primenet.com wrote:

> Ouch!  It's been suggested that we're more of a fan club than a group of
> independent-thinking critical readers.  And Diana York Blaine cleverly
> opines that the reason CoL49 is dissed here is 'cuz Oedipa's a GIRL.  These
> two thoughts embolden me as follows.
> 
> I confess: I don't much care for Gravity's Rainbow, but Col49 and V. both
> rank in my personal Top Five, and are much better books than GR.  GR
> reminds me of Mark Twain's description of Wagner's music being better than
> it sounds.  Yes, I admire the mind of a man who could produce a GR.  I'm in
> awe of his omnidimensional knowledge (there _I_ go with the fan club stuff)
> and technical skill.  I think the messages conveyed by GR are profound and
> important.  However, I also agree with those Pulitzer Prize judges who, in
> voting to overrule the recommendation of the Pulizter literature
> subcommittee, pronounced GR as "unreadable."
> 
> Someone on the list a few days ago suggested that one reason to get excited
> about the upcoming M&D is that it is a long book.  As David Thornburn and
> others have pointed out, length ain't strength.  GR's chief fault is that
> it lacks a good story.  As Pynchon himself points out, anyone can recite
> almanac facts, or in his case, encyclopedia facts.  But I, for one, don't
> read novels for their dazzling link-up of arcana, and I suggest that few
> literary works that are generally (note: I did NOT say universally) revered
> lack a good yarn.  Col49 has the best story of any Pynchon novel.  V.
> begins by contrasting The Man With A Story (Stencil) with (The Man Without
> A Story) (Benny), and then skillfully weaves the two together.  Stories are
> important; they make a novel more than just the sum of its facts, ideas and
> characters.  They resonate somewhere south of the brain.  This is what GR
> fails to do.
> 
> Although I didn't think much of Vineland, I was cheered a bit by its step
> away from the arid virtuosity of GR and toward the yarnspinning of V. and
> Col49.  May M&D continue this trend.
> 
> Easily 90% of the Pynchon-related posts on this list concern GR--hey, so
> did my last two.  Maybe Col49 is, as Diana York Blaine suggests, written
> off because of its hero-ine usage.  Maybe V. is trashed--or
> ignored--because Pynchon wrote it when he was so damn young.  But will
> people still be reading GR 100 years from now?  Not as much as they'll be
> reading Pynch's earlier fictions, IMHO.
> 
> --Jimmy
> 
> http://www.angelfire.com/oh/Insouciance/
> 
> or
> 
> http://www.angelfire.com/oh/Insouciance/index.html
> 
>