"Difficult"?

[Sherwood, Harrison]

>Greg Montalbano, in "Difficult"? wrote:
>
>>> I thought I'd take advantage of the current relative lull on the list 

I just subscribed this morning. This is a _lull_?
>
>>> Am I the only one who takes exception to this?  I mean, I've always read
>>>FOR
>>> PLEASURE, first and foremost;  and it seems to me that even the most
>>> non-analytical readers (among whom I number myself) can, if they're
>>>willing
>>> to relinquish control & just let themselves be swept along by an author
>>> they've learned to trust, can enjoy the alternating playfulness,
>>>intensity,
>>> insight and STORIES (strange, hilarious and wonderful stories) this writer
>>> has to offer.

I'm on page 250 or so of Mason & Dixon, and I've found falling back on a
technique that I need only with Pynchon, Joyce, and a few other
"difficult" writers. The trick, I find, is to _read really slowly_,
actually whispering the text to myself. (Yes, where Pynchon is
concerned, I _do_ move my lips when I read!)

I think what people mean when they say Pynchon is "tough" is that he has
a way of introducing important plot points way, way down in the middle
of lengthy paragraphs where you'll miss them if you're just skimming.
You find yourself thinking "Whaaa? Where _that_ come from? Where _are_
we, anyway?" if you don't pay constant careful attention. Most writers
make a point of telegraphing major plot events, so they don't come as a
surprise to the reader. Pynchon is not so condescending.

The first harbinger of my current TRP binge came when I read the review
of Mason & Dixon in the Washington Post weekend book review section a
couple of weeks ago. I mention this because as I progress through M&D I
have come to the hilarious realization that the reviewer read only the
first 200 pages of the book and got the rest from press releases--all
the specific characters and events mentioned in the review occur only in
the first quarter of the book.

One thing I've come to notice as a major style difference between GR and
M&D is that in the new book Pynchon seems to have given up those
wonderful, strange and fascinating lists of _stuff_ that pepper GR.
Anybody else notice this? I'm thinking of the passage describing the
contents of Slothrop's desk at ACHTUNG, or (one of my favorite bits of
Pynchon writing) a passage near the middle of the book that begins "The
nations are on the move," and goes on to list the hundreds of, well,
_things 'n' stuff_ is the best way to describe it, that is being lugged
around WWII Europe by displaced refugees. I miss this in M&D. 

>>> ...I have never looked up from a Pynchon novel & thought "This is HARD!"

Oh, I dunno... Some of the fruitier passages of GR had me thinking that.
Wasn't the book I was talking about, though, nyuk nyuk.
>
>______________________________________________________
>>> "No matter HOW good she looks, there's a guy somewhere
>>>  who just can't TAKE any more of her shit."

Brigadier Pudding?

>Harrison