difficulty

[LARSSON at VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU]

Jimmy comments:
"Sounds to me like we're essentially in agreement.  You say, If Pynchon is
this enjoyable, then he can't be difficult; I say, Pynchon is enjoyable to
the degree he _is_ difficult.  Maybe this is a distinction without a
difference.
 
Couple of other things occurred to me:
 
1) I think that is was reported that when Pynchon was asked why his writing
was so difficult, he responded by asking, "Why should things be easy to
understand?"  This sounds to me like TRP himself admits he is difficult and
doesn't give a hoot.
 
2) A cynic is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of
nothing.  Some of those who pan Pynchon are cynics."


Recall Pynchon's early inspiration, Mr. Eliot of St. Louis and London, who
averred that poetry should be difficult, and did his best to make it so.


There are different kinds of difficulty in reading: 
	that of concept: Plato, Aristotle, Kant
	that of concept + language: Heiddeger, Lacan, Derrida
	that of langauge and reference: Jameson, Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak
	that of narrative: Sterne, Garcia Marquez
	that of narrative + language: Melville, Conrad
	that of narrative + language + concept: Pynchon

(to name a few: your mileage may vary)

Yet Pynchon's is among the most worthwhile and rewarding of them all!

And then there is everyday difficulty: reports, proposals, prospectuses,
announcements, and the languages of control via obfuscation.

Guess what's better to read?

Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)