Pynchonian (was The Decline and Fall of SF)

[Skip Wolfe]

On Thu, 27 Mar 97  "Brett Coley" writes:

>I always thought W. Gibson owed a lot to a certain Mr. Brunner, among
>others.  I don't see the Pynchon connection, what am I missing here?
>It's been a while since I read Neuromancer, and I haven't felt like
>going back and rereading it, but I don't remember it seeming
>particularly "Pynchonian".

I didn't find Neuromancer particularly Pynchonian either -- and this
brings up the broader question that has been bugging me for some time,
namely, what exactly _is_ Pynchonian?

I've seen many books described as Pynchonian (or authors compared with
Pynchon) by reviewers, other writers, blurbmeisters, and of course other
members of this list.  (For the purpose of discussion, I'm saying that a
recommendation of a book or author as one that would be enjoyed by
Pyn-heads is the same as saying that book or author is Pynchonian,
although I know it's not.)

For the blurbists & reviewers, I think half the time they just use
Pynchon's name because he's recognized as the majorist of major authors
even by those who have never read him, and his name sells and attracts
attention.

But the others . . . is a book Pynchonian simply because it's long? 
Simply because it's difficult?  Simply because it uses scientific
metaphors & themes?  Simply because it's darkly humorous?   I haven't
read all the authors that I've seen compared with Pynchon, but of those I
have, I don't think I would call any of them really Pynchonian.  Steve
Erickson,  Richard Powers, DFW . . . not really.  Even William Gaddis (at
least in _The Recognitions_, which is the only one of his books I've
finished) I find much more traditionally literary than TRP.

To me, Pynchon's (what someone -- I forget who -- called his "remarkably
subtle") style is a big part of what makes him unique.  Nobody I've found
can, IMO, match the huge range of his styles, effectively mix sophomoric
humor, high seriousness and everything in between, evoke a mood or set a
scene so economically, and move us in such unexpected ways (why does the
first line of the final song in _GR_ always bring a lump to the throat?).
  There's also the breadth (I don't know about the depth) of his
knowledge.  and his mastery of interweaving complex plots and themes. And
his way of going surreal on you in the middle of a scene.   I just don't
see any other authors combining all these traits, or even enough of them
to rate pynchonesque-hood..

Anyway, I'll leave this half-baked for now and ask what it is _you_ think
makes Pynchon Pynchonian -- or what other authors you find so, and why.