OK

[Keith Brecher]

At 10:08 PM 3/23/97 -0500, Paul Mackin wrote:
>>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.  

>    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>
IN PRAISE OF MCELROY AND INVECTIVE AGAINST SWINE

>With regard to the discussion of Pynchon's difficulty versus Calvino and
Rushdie and a more remote discussion of the James Atlas essay in the NYT
magazine about two weeks ago bashing Pynchon, Henry James, and John Barth
among others for producing difficult stuff that is not readily
comprehensible--is anybody on the list an admirer of Joseph McElroy? He
seems to me a far less accessible writer than our friend Ruggles and,
additionally, is a card-carrying member--with Barth and David Foster
Wallace--of the so-called "700 Club," meaning he's written a novel greater
than 700 pages. McElroy's difficulty nearly makes Pynchon's look like smoke
and mirrors. I think you could make a compelling argument that Ruggles is
relatively conservative narratively compared to McElroy. For example, the
circular narratives of GR meant to mimic molecular chains is a neat idea,
but lacks the rigorous difficulty of the expanding consciousness and
fractal narratives of PLUS and WOMEN AND MEN, respectively. Another
example: Ruggles loves to pack in the high/low cultural allusions and use
multiple foreign expressions without translation (German, Herero, that Suso
thing, Spanish, usw) giving him that encyclopedic glow. McElroy, on the
other hand, avoids obvious allusions and sometimes his writing seems to
occur in a cultural void (literally in PLUS). Thus, if you don't feel like
consulting the GR companion for every WW II acronym or foreign phrase, you
can still read, understand, and maybe even enjoy GR. WOMEN AND MEN, on the
other hand, does not require a companion, but cannot be read or understood
easily.

The other thing on my mind was a recent article I read in the Providence
Phoenix which described the difficulty faced by PhD's in the humanities
finding employment. One point made in the article was that practioners of
certain disciplines had developed an hermetic, obfuscating critical
language meant to confer exclusivity and importance on their subject
matter. The solicitation for 'academic "experts"' on Ruggles brings this to
mind. Though I've read some worthwhile TRP criticism, it seems to me that
alot of it is total boolshit. Two examples (though there are many many
more): WRITING/PYNCHON and an essay by Molly Hite in THE VINELAND PAPERS
whose name I've repressed from horror. Is there really any need for this
crap? In that Phoenix article, the author made the point that PhD's were
upset that their modern language ramblings were not given equal status to
scientific endeavors. But, is there any reason why the informed and
rarefied perspectives of PYNCHON NOTES should be accorded such status? In
the final analysis, these critics with their Pentecostal tongues seem like
lampreys living off a larger fish, in this particular instance named Ruggles. 
>
>
>
>