A simple Pynchon:Gaddis analogy

[Australian Studies Centre]

In many responses to MD, like Keith's recent post, there seems to be this
assumed idea that Pynchon was setting out to write the great American
novel, and when some reviewers don't consider it the great novel, they then
read it as a failure. Seriously, was he? Surely the secrecy surrounding the
publication and the lack of the so frequent american aggrandisement of a
certain products (go no further than the plethora of pap about the latest
Holywood movie) suggests that there was never a qualifier of 'masterpiece'
asserted by Pynchon in the first place. 

Anyway, who measures this quality of 'great'? In Australia before a cricket
match they always cut to a scene with the commentator in the middle of the
field examining the pitch, giving various details about the type of grass,
dryness of the turf, amount and dept of cracks etc. And then they give this
this number called 'players comfort.' They never explain what or how the
number is decided, but it is said in all seriousness. Today is 21. And it's
kinda like assessing a novel - Oh MD is 35, but Gaddis once wrote a 43 and
I only open the cover of a book if it ranks 29 or higher. My bus ride this
morning was a 16 but lucky my breakfast was 29, so I may average out a low
twenty day. 

I don't see how qualifications can reliably be made to areas such as
literature. 

Finally, precisely what is the hoax - that certain elements of the literary
establishment were expecting one of the best novels of the century and were
disappointed?  

Mike Hayes

Kasetsart University
Bangkhen 10900
Bangkok, Thailand
ph (66 2) 942 8174
fax (66 2) 942 8170
psd.asc at nontri.ku.ac.th