No fawning P-cultie, I

[Meg Larson]

How old was TRP when _V._ was published?  26?  Not bad for a mere baby.  

I have read _GR_, more than once, and I disagree with the notion that it is
"unreadable."  I understand why you don't *revere* it as some others do,
but I would opine that the Pulitzer Prize judges who dismissed it did so,
in part anyway, because it was such a frontal attack on established reading
practices, and because it openly dealt with taboos that are, to some,
frankly offensive.  I read it, for the first time, armed with only with an
episode-by-episode summary, which only gives slight details as to what is
happening in each episode.  I was baffled, mystified, confused, shocked,
and any other adjective along these lines that one would care to throw in. 

When I finished the book--the only student out of 31 who did so--I was
wiped out.  I know that may sound funny to some, but reading _GR_ was one
of the most cognitively important "academic" endeavors I've ever let myself
be a part of.  One reason may be that it is was so different than anything
I'd read before or since.  I am not the same little college student that I
was before _GR_, and if that sounds hopelessly juvenile, then so be it.  

A-and that is not to say that _GR_ is not without its faults, but one of
them is not the lack of a good story.  In fact, I'd say, there are several
good stories going on in it; the problem is trying to follow all of them in
the usual linear sense; _GR_ is most definitely not a "linear" kind of
novel.  The blurb on the back of my copy reads: "AN event . .
.bonecrushingly dense . . . grindingly dull . . ." and I agree in some
ways, but the blurb continues and states that _GR_ is "an exceedingly
complex work of art."  This may be also part of why those boneheaded judges
passed it over (pun intended) for a PP--they couldn't handle a novel that
requires patience and committment to get through, but is definitely worth
the trouble.  That it's not an easy read is one of its main charms.

Since reading _GR_, I've gone on to read every other work by Pynchon,
except _Slow Learner_ (it's next) and of course, _M&D_, and have come to a
couple of obvious conclusions, and one not-so-obvious:
1) _GR_ is and will remain TRP'S masterpiece.  And that will be, again in
part, because _GR_ is NOT the perfect novel.  Yes, I'd venture to say that
as long as there are fans of the novel it will still be read in a hundred
years.  Maybe not for the reasons its being read now, but it will be read.
2) It is not a one-read-only text and anyone who reads it only once has not
read it, or given it a chance.  
3) I like all of his work, and can find something worthwhile in each of
them, even _Vineland_.  That's part of TRP'S charm, IMHO.

I don't know if I agree with Diana's claim that Andrew's problem with COL49
is that the protagonist is female; I had no problem with dear Tyrone's
gender, or Zoyd's or Benny's . . . I may be alone in this thinking, but I'd
venture to say that maybe Andrew had a problem with it that--yikes!--had
nothing to do with gender.  Until Andrew clarifies this, it's all
conjecture, n'est-ce pas?

I agree with you--Pynchon is a damn fine storyteller, but it's evident in
all of his work, even and especially in _GR_.  

"Too many textbooks and discussions leave students free to make up their
minds about things"
                                  --- Mel Gabler, Texas textbook critic 

Meg Larson
Saginaw Valley State University
mgl at tardis.svsu.edu              

----------
> From: doktor at primenet.com
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: No fawning P-cultie, I
> Date: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 1:37 PM
> 
> 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
> 
>