What does Pynchon think about Lot 49?

[Brian D. McCary]

John Mascaro sez:

"So, as a means of understanding your reaction (i.e. not as a way of 
*challenging* it), I wonder if you could elaborate a little, at least 
by pointing out the sections you find *clunky.*  Or maybe a little 
more of how you conclude that some of it doesn't meet P's standards 
as you have intuited them from the intro.  Do you agree that we might 
not want to take all of the intro to SL at face value?  It seems a 
fun house of possible tricks and traps to me."

	The last shall be first:  wrt the intro to Slow Learner, I 
suppose I do take it at face value.  Most of his comments are pretty 
specific and well supported by the references to the text.  He could 
have been making fun of the whole idea of judging writing as "good" 
or "bad", in which case the joke went right over my head, ha ha, the 
laugh's on me, poor sot.

	He might also been satirizing critics who had nit­picked on 
his writing.  Does anyone on the list have copies of initial reviews 
for Lot 49 which might have compared it unfavorably to V, or invoked 
language about a sophomore slump, or the like?  If there were 
negative reviews about Lot 49, especially public ones, he easily 
could have meant the comment about forgetting what he had learned 
sarcastically.  I do remember a story (I think it was on the p­list) 
about him writing a fairly acid letter to some newspaper after some 
other writer complained that Pynchon stole the name Genghis Cohen 
from his work.

	On the other hand, the characteristics which he refers to as 
flaws do exist, and they would, as a rule, be the kinds of things 
which would be covered in writing seminars: write from experience, 
don't use words you don't know,  make the characters real, ect.  He 
does misuse grippe espanole, although I sure didn't notice until he 
pointed it out.  The sex is very vague in The Small Rain ­ just 
compare it to the Bianca scene, or the Brigadier Pudding scene in GR.

	I've always thought that Slow Learner was the child of two 
parents: first, it was his own review or exercise during or before 
Vineland, and second, it works like a substitute for him appearing on 
campuses in writing seminars.  He made some money, he kept his name 
in circulation, and he made some stuff available which wasn't before 
then, without having to do much creative work.  As such, there would 
be no real point in writing much that he didn't feel.

	Which is probably the real reason I take it at face value: 
whatever he has written, short story, novel, essay, or even liner 
notes, seems very straight forward to me.  It may be convoluted, and 
often funny, but he seems to say what he feels.  Since he can't go on 
Letterman and claim "yeah, that was a bit of a joke, just pulling 
their leg", or explain his subtle satiric style to shiny faced 
sophomores so that they will get it, I tend to figure he's gonna do 
his best to make it clear in the writing.  I could, of course, be 
wrong.

	The interesting logical quagmire here is that if you discount 
the SL intro, Lot 49 stays pretty pristine, but if you don't discount 
the SL intro, you end up discounting Lot 49 slightly.  Something's 
gotta give.  Always happens in self­referential criticism.  You pays 
your money, and you takes your choice.  Since Lot 49 doesn't suffer 
too badly even by his standards (it's still a better book than most, 
and it's a hell of a lot better than I could possibly write) there's 
not much harm in taking the SL criticisms seriously.

	Um, its nice outside for once here in Misery, and I've got 
the bike running, and this has already dragged on to long.  I'll try 
to pick on Lot 49 tomorrow.
	
	Brian McCary