GR and V: Now it's Personal! : )

[Steven Maas (CUTR)]

I had intended to leave my defense of GR as TRP's greatest at what I said
before (briefly, that I can read it over and over again without getting
tired of it).  But now I can't stop, not with the implication that GR is
nothing more than an encyclopedia in a novel's clothing.

doktor Jimmy sez:
	"The difference between reading, say, an encyclopedia and a novel
	is that the latter, through the device of the story, resonates
	with us, creates those "a-AH!" moments where our understanding
	surpasses our comprehension, and expresses truths that it would
	take millions of non-fiction words to present."

Precisely!  This is _exactly_ why GR is my all-time favorite book.  No
other book in my experience has more of these moments.  GR has 'em on
every page, I think.  And there's more of them to discover on every
reading. 

Jimmy discusses the question of plot in GR.  The issue of whether or not
GR has a plot, or too many plots, or whatever, strikes me as a red
herring, that is, as irrelevant to the question of whether or not GR is a
masterpiece. To continue the fish metaphor, if something smells, looks,
sounds, and tastes like a catfish it's likely a catfish.  GR, so to speak,
smells, looks, sounds, and tastes like a masterpiece (to me), no matter
how many or how few plots it has. 

Jimmy goes on to say:
        One could re-read an encyclopedia or a dictionary and get more out
        of it each time, too.  What we expect from a novelist, however, is
        a more artful organization of ideas than we find in nonfiction.

_Artful_ is one of the top words I would use in describing GR to those
poor benighted folks who haven't read it.

As Jimmy points out, "GR is a book famous for not being read."  This has
always amazed me, that a book that I find to be so dang much fun
(fun--broadly defined--is really the main thing I expect from a book) is
called "unreadable" by many people who seem intelligent and savvy. Just
goes to show that there's no accountin' for taste, and I know there's
books that I've never been able to read but others think are the greatest.
I figure the lack may be in me, not the author. This all points out once
again, as if that were necessary, that beauty, or greatness, is in the
eye, or mind, of the beholder.

Now as for V, personally I think the chapters about Stencil's search are
excellent, in fact in some cases equal to GR.  The chapters about Benny
and the Whole Sick Crew (with the exception of the Fairing's Parish story
in the alligator chapter - wow) ain't near as good, and I think if any of
Pynchon's major works showcase faults in his early writing, it's these. 
For example, female characters (except for the major ones) often don't
even rate names.  Women who hang around with the Crew are often referred
to as camp followers or something (please forgive my inexactness here, I
don't have the book handy) because Pynchon neglects to give them any
characteristics to distinguish one from another. In contrast, male
characters, even those who just stop in for one or two mentions, are
almost always named and given at least some rudimentary distinguishing
characteristics. Of course Pynchon discusses similar problems in some of
his short fiction in the intro to Slow Learner.  In other ways too parts
of the Whole Sick Crew chapters to my ear resonate with nearly sophomoric
sensibilities. All this aside, I still rate V as a great, though flawed,
work.

CoL49 to my mind is a good book, not a great one.  It doesn't have near
the ratio of those "Ahas" to total words that GR or even V does.  As Jimmy
says, it's a good mystery yarn.  I'd go a little further and say it's head
and shoulders above your average dime store novel, but...it's no GR!

	Steve Maas