OK

[Paul Mackin]

>From Isaac:
    Pynchon was by far the toughest to read of the 3.  Strangely enough I
had no problems with "The Satanic Verses" a la Salman Rushdie, which I was
told was a very difficult book to read.  I found it to be rather
entertaining and fast-paced.
    V. is just incredibly dense, no?   

>>>>>>>>So, it was a pretty good selection, then, that the prof presented you with. What better way to demonstrate the "density" of Pynchon than presenting him alongside a writer you can drain dry the first time through?  Oh, I know the feeling. Something you don't "get" IS frustrating.  But think of it this way. _V._ can challenge you for years, maybe forever, while you may never want to pick up _The Satanic Verses_ again, as good a book as it is. 
(I know I didn't.) I'd go so far as to say that if someday you do finally extract all the meaning there is to extract from _V._ you may find the frustration replaced by a sense of loss. (Well, who really knows?)

I realize the above isn't much help in writing your paper, when all you really know at this point is that the book is too ambiguous to draw any very clear conclusion from.. So, for purposes of your class, go to Tony Tanner as Craig wisely suggests. But never forget that the "density" of Pynchon's writing is what makes the Tony Tanners possible. (No relection on you, Tony)

Best of luck.

			P.

----------
From: 	Isaac Schankler[SMTP:speicus at grfn.org]
Sent: 	Sunday, March 23, 1997 2:42 PM
To: 	pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: 	RE: OK


>>>>>>>>Well, I'm not a "message" person so may not be the one to reply if
>that what you seek, but didn't you find the mysterious quest tantalizing
>in itself?  The exotic locales and bizarre historic references? I was
>totally haunted.

    I think I may have enjoyed the novel more if I'd had more time to read
it... I'm doing a project now where I chose Pynchon as one author to read,
plus Rushdie and Calvino.  If it seems random, it mostly is... I chose the
vague topic of "postmodernism" and that was probably a mistake, choosing
something so broad and then picking 3 pinpoints to try to represent that.
    Pynchon was by far the toughest to read of the 3.  Strangely enough I
had no problems with "The Satanic Verses" a la Salman Rushdie, which I was
told was a very difficult book to read.  I found it to be rather
entertaining and fast-paced.
    V. is just incredibly dense, no?   So much of it is seemingly
irrelevant... minor characters who have conversations which may or may not
have meaning, countless names and allusions that I probably didn't
catch... but Rushdie is full of allusions, too.  I'm trying to figure out
the problem I have with Pynchon.
    All the edges in V. seem to be blurred... characters, places, times
meld together and they're hard to distinguish, and it made the book
infuriating to read for me.  "What if that's the point?"  I'd thought of
that, too.  But it seems such an obvious point for 500 densely-packed
pages.  If it's not the point then the book is just hard to read.  If it
is the point then the book seems rather condescending, rather unfriendly.
    So that's why I think I'm looking for another possible meaning to the
book... because otherwise I don't think I'll be able to like the book.
    Because of the project, I've been reading literary criticisms of the
book and also trying to find my own angle... it may have tainted some of
the enjoyment I might have had reading the book.
    Or perhaps I am not sophisticated enough to understand the novel?
That I grasped Rushdie and Calvino because they are not as great authors,
because they approach me at a level I can comprehend?
    I think the futility of the search for answers must be at least part
of the novel, because in Stencil it's blatant.  He searches for V. but
when he comes close he runs away... he doesn't want to see the real
truth... similarily, whoever's reading the novel is going to want to
understand V., even when the absence of a truth is hinted at... at the end
when V. isn't really revealed, we have problems with that, and we have
problems with all the things he blurs, the answers he denies us.  I had a
problem with it, at least.
    I believe too much in truth, and absolutes, at least as conceptual
goals if not tangible things, to accept that, I think.

    Is anyone on the list an academic "expert" on Pynchon?   An email
"interview" would probably help me immensely with my project.
    (Yes, I am motivated ultimately by selfishness, sadly enough.)

<s>