[2] Trying Crying

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Well, Andrew, I appreciate your point of view,though you seem to be shifting away from 
some of your former positions.  I doubt that this would be caused by the breathtaking 
insights of my remarks; more likely you were speaking too hastily before; one, of course, 
nonetheless hopes .  .  .

Maybe you could clear up a few puzzlements your post leaves me with:

(1) you write:
>TCOL49 is in part a pastiche, of the detective story. 

In what sense are you using the word *pastiche*?  It means either (1) an imitation or 
parody, or (2) a hodge-podge, a collection of rag ends and tails.  Neither sense seems to 
make any sense w/ respect to CL 49.  Is this the word you wanted here?

(2) you continue:

>This already sets it well apart from V and GR which
>are `serious novels', by which I identify not the matter they address
>but that they set out to address this matter in a particular style and
>at a particular length.  

Again I plead for clarity.  What is the *particular* style and length of a*serious* novel?
By your criteria, whatever they may turn out to be, is ALICE IN WONDERLAND a serious 
novel? (Not a rhetorical question.  I am trying to infer the basis on which you issue these 
very prescriptive-sounding value judgments).

(3) continuing:
>TCOL49 is  . . . quite deliberately a far less ambitious piece than GR. Of course we
>can't expect the same development of such a work and look, it isn't
>there. But then was that not my point? Given its scale Pynchon does an
>admirable job of this short novel but that doesn't stop it being
>junior league by comparison with GR.

Not just *deliberately* but *quite* deliberately?  You have that on good authority I 
presume? When did you last speak to him?
 It's a different book.  It has different ambitions.  It doesn't have *less* ambition.
Scale is not a deciding factor, IMO. Your implication is that novels are a worthier genre 
than short stories, but there are plenty of short stories better than plenty of long novels 
(Have you read DUBLINERS lately?  Or even that SLOW LEARNER?).
If an artist sets out to construct a perfect miniature of St. Paul's, and does so, do we not  
miss the point in complaining that those tiny windows let in so little light compared to 
Wren's job up the street?

(4) further on:
>I don't think I suggested that the effect in GR was a mere one of
>numbers - I don;t normally read by numbers.

Well, it seems to me sometimes you do and sometimes you don't.  Problem for me is that 
you seem to slide back and forth.  For example, in your original post (the one I first 
responded to) you conclude:

>>IN TCOL49 I not only recall less moments of poetry (although taking
>>the term literally The Couriers Tragedy is hilarious `poetry') I also
>>recall less balance, less control of the tone and voice. No
>>spine-tingling as I read it, anyway, not like GR.

So here we have at least some numerical rendering implied, as well as the negative  
judgments which characterized your opinions in that post.  It's true your second post (the 
main one I'm quoting here), showed some change of heart, like this:

 >I do actually rate TCOL49 as a great novel

and
. . .
>True, true. There are chills and thrills aplenty. It is a couple of
>years since I last read TCOL49. Must read it again, it's a damn fine
>story.


(5) Andrew, how can a man who claims to find comparisons *odious* come up w/ this 
one:
>[GR] is The Art of Fugue to TCOL49's Brandenburg Concerto.

(emoticon of lots of novelists and composers rolling over, grimacing, in their graves)

(6)  In your prescptive way, you fail to grasp the point of my playing w/ the idea that CL49 
is an allegory of reading Pynchon's other works.

>I am not totally switched off by your attempt to see TCOL49 as an
>allegory for reading Pynchon but I don't find it very appealing.  It
>encourages the idea that Pynchon's writing is all about uncertainty,
>and excluded middles. Well, I don't think so.

Neither do I.  How on earth do you arrive at that?  Do you really think CL49 is only about 
*uncertainty, and excluded middles*? If so, that's your idea and none of mine. Behind my 
semi-playful suggestion is the notion that its treatment of the relationship between the 
world (this one) and the language we use to describe the world is a key to how Pynchon 
views both language and the world.  All the shifty depths and betrayals in both language 
and the world mirror each other. 
 Andrew, this is the book which after all tells us explicitly that * there's high magic in low 
puns* and that metaphor is *a thrust at truth and a lie.*  Can you seriously argue that  
these are not perfect descriptions of P's methods in all of his work?

 (7) A few final thoughts:
>TCOL49 is not so much a guide to reading Pynchon's
>other work as a statement of the problem his major work addresses

Since that sounds like saying the same thing twice, I guess I agree w/ you, though we 
might disagree on what that *problem* is, since you continue:
 -
>the world we live in is rotten, we don't understand it, don't know how
>to deal with it and feel threatened at every turn by the way the evil
>mounts up around us and seems to pick us out personally for misfortune
>no matter what good, polite, quiet, obedient little people we have
>been. 

Perhaps here we arrive at a mutually enlightening spot.  I see it this way--

The world we live in is spilled and broken, not rotten (much too prescriptive again).  We 
don't understand it, but we keep trying to understand it.  We feel feel threatened at every 
turn by the way the evil mounts up around us, but we forge personal relationships that 
help us to stave off the darkness.  Some of those relationships end in betrayal and 
disappointment, but that doesn't stop the urge to keep seeking.  The problem Pynchon 
addresses (though of course the whole notion that novels *address*  *problems* might 
not bear too much scrutiny) is not the rotten world--who's gonna fix that?  The problem is 
how do we go on, since we do go on, given the terrible knowledge we have?


(8)
>Now which book would you expect to contain the meat and which
>one is small potatoes?

Sorry, I find culinary comparisons odious.

Enjoying  your challenging challenges,
john m