[2] Trying Crying

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu writes:

> 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 .  .  .

I resent^H^H^H^H^H reject that binary opposition.

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

Or maybe I'm not up to the task . . .

> (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?

In sense (1). If it deosn't make any sense I don't knwo what else to
try. Anyone speak Pomeranian?

> (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).

It's not a question of what is serious rather what is not. I am merely
suggesting that the brevity of TCOL49 should be taken as an indication
that it's scope is limited. Not that this is a general rule or
anything which you can apply to all novels and novelists. [Aside:
Having read your full post before composing this reply I notice that
several times you universalize statements I make about GR and TCOL49
to be general statements about novels. Not actually implied and
exactly the reason why I find comparisons so odious - people use local
distinctions and local analogies as grounds for making general
distinctions and general analogies.] But in this case, the contrast is
significant. In GR Pynchon has much to say and much evidence to
present for it and he expends great effort on presenting it in an
entertaining, enloghtening and deliberately disorienting manner.
TCOL49 has only a few things to say, does not go to lengths to expand
on the relation between its content and things outside the book and
does not employ the variety of novel, well-honed and masterfully
applied range of techniques employed in GR. That's what I mean when I
say it is nto `serious' compared to GR. It's not a general statement
about all novels, it's closely tied to my idea of what Pynchon is
doing with GR and was too rushed, young and cocky to have sorted out
when he wrote TCOL49 (that's how I interpret his Slow Learner put down
anyweay).

> (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?

The authority of the text, perhaps? That's how I read it and snide
comments are not going to make me budge. Think of me like that Franz.
Give me a reason in terms I will find acceptable and I'll let you
change my mind.

> When did you last speak to him?

I need to speak to him? Are you trying to change the rules in
mid-game?

> 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?

Like I said you are the one making the general claims. What I wrote
was a judgement about Pynchon's two novels. Yes, of course I have read
Dubliners several times and reread it within the last 2 years. It's a
complete masterpiece. Totally different to TCOL49. And to adapt your
analogy my criticism is not that the windows are too tiny but more
along the lines that all the emotions inspired by a miniature model
are also to be found in the cathedral itself but there are some
feelings which one can only begin to sense in the cathedral.

> (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.

No, no numerical rendering implied at all, merely a notion of relative
magnitude. Firstly, we are not talking about a discrete phenomenon
here so counting is not in question. Second, there is no implied
system of measurement using position along a calibrated numeric
scale. More than or less than merely imply a binary ordering relation
along each of the various dimensions of comparison.. May not be a
complete order, may not even be coherent as an order e.g. does the
transitivity rule really hold. And worse still teh order is only being
imposed on a domain with two elements, TCOL49 and GR, and I only
explicitly mentioned 4 or 5 dimensions. So, teh idea that I am
implying that there is a general multidimensional quantitative
framework within which all novels can be located is rather a ramatic
leap from my original point, no? Or do you want me to recommend some
introductiry maths texts for you to scan before you get back to me on
that one.

>  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.

Well, the first statement is not a change of heart. I have always
thougth it was a great novel and always thought it was overshadowed by
GR. The second could be called a `change of heart' although it's more
of a pleasant recall than anything else.

> (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)

Sorry to have caused you such mirth. Next time I'll try to turn the
sound down a bit lower so as not to wake you up.

> (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.

Hey, who said what I wrote was a prescription? I never intended it to
be taken down and inscribed on granite. Not sure I even took it to be
a direct or indirect reply to you or even a more or less apropos
comment.

> >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.

No. I said `encourages the idea' because I think that is what TCOL49
does - `encourages' the idea that binary oppositions are of central
importance in Pynchon's work. Just as LudWit got landed with being
remembered for `family resemblances' because of his students
unfortunate circulation of the Blue Book (or was it the Yellow Book),
another book which escaped from the lab while the master was working
away on the magnum opus (Frankenstein allusions fully intended). Look
at all the early GR criticism and see how much this stuff dominates.
GR certainly doesn't contain any great stress on this idea. It comes
from TCOL49.

> 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.

So this is original to Pynchon? Perhaps you should go read some more
Wittgenstein. And is this it? TCOL49 is just this, a prolegomenon to
further reading of Pynchon, a warning about how slippery language can
be in its collusion with reality and unreality? And forget the
philosophical underpinnings even as a literary event this message is
old hat. Melville's The Confidence Man has nailed this (meta-)theme.

> 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?

I would seriously argue that this is only a small part of `Pynchon's
methods'
.

>  (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,

No you don't since it is not saying the same thing twice. Stating a
problem may be a good (if not the best) preparation for giving an
answer but in some cases the statement of the problem is of little or
no help when it comes to understanding the answer e.g. Fermat's Last
theorem is a very easy problem to state and htere are maybe less than
one people in the world who understand the answer. Of course, the
relaity is that understanding the answer and understanding the `real
nature' of the problem are two sides of the same coin which means that
the original statement of the problem is different to the one you have
when you get to throw that ladder away. And this is so with GR. The
way TCOL49 presents things is not as ful nor as coherent as the
presentation in GR and taht's why it's not as good a book.

> 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?

Yeah, so finally we are quite close to agreeing (evenm it appears,
agreeing to go along with the notion that these two novels do address
certain problems - note, you are the one who stated it as a general
proposition about *novels* which I would never consider suggesting; I
have always talked wrt to GR and TCOL49). I agree the question is how
do we go on given the terrible knowledge we have? My reason for
pointing out that being `good, polite, quiet, obedient little people'
is of no help is because I think Pynchon points out the same, several
times. There's reconciling yourself to the misery a la preterition and
there's organized fighting back a la Counterforce but there is also
something else, Slothrop's cross roads and his dissolving into `just
being'. Rapture with your clothes on.

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

> Sorry, I find culinary comparisons odious.

Right, yeah. Odious.

> Enjoying  your challenging challenges,

Not particularly enjoying your challenges. But there you go, probably
put too much acid in the cornflakes this morning.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.