Non-fan-club post!

[David Casseres]

Murthy sez

>Well now we're getting somewhere. My take on this is that the irony and
>ambiguity in Pynchon's books is not in order to avoid responsibility for
>the literal meanings (although I agree that this is the case with some
>other writers I can think of), but because without some kind of irony
>and ambiguity, his novels would turn into long screeds against Them and
>have to stocked in the non-fiction aisles. The ambiguity lets us look
>into Their mirror and see ourselves.

I'd even go a little farther and say that we are too easily sucked into 
long discussions about exactly what it is that Pynchon wants to teach us, 
at the expense of noticing the way he does it -- that is, the art of the 
novel.  Pynchon's art is far more intricate and original, if you ask me, 
than his moral/political message.  You can say that the art is only to 
make the message compelling, but just as easily you can say that the 
message is a vehicle for the art.

In reality they're inseparable, and that's one of the signs of great 
writing.  Far from being a way of avoiding commitment to the message, the 
ambiguity and irony are part of the message.  If we write those long 
screeds against Them, well guess what, few readers will be impressed -- 
because the indictments are only part of the story.  It's things like 
irony and ambiguity (not to mention beautiful, compelling prose, usw) 
that convince us the story is true.


Cheers,
David