Why Does Pynchon....(was Re: Schmuck Amuck)

[davemarc]

No, it's not a crime to criticize TRP on this list.  Though it's rather
disingenuous to expect a list with hundreds of Pynchon admirers not to
include foax who'll snap at people who snap at Pynchon's work.  One of the
problems with Keith's post was not that it was critical of M&D, but that it
didn't make much sense.  What kind of empty claim was it to say that Kirn's
review had been proven right?  

In the past, pro-Vineland and anti-Vineland factions have discussed issues
related to the book with some measure of clarity and mutual respect. 
There's no reason why a similar discussion can't revolve around M&D.  I
think the issues of narrative flow (or lack thereof) and the supersweet
Cherrycoke framing story merit discussion.  Bit there's probably more to be
gained from analyzing how those elements do and don't work in relation to
the work as a whole than from claiming that M&D's definitely awful just
because the flow is slow or the framing story's sentimental or saccharine.

On the subject of narrative flow, I think the pacing is deliberate, tied-in
with concepts related to the arduous labors of the central characters as
well as the notion that the chapters are like tarot cards that tell part of
the story on their own, and part of the story considered as part of a
greater whole.  The treacly framing story strikes me as a parody on the
lines of Robert Benchley's Christmas tales; it contrasts with the rather
dour story of Mason's family.  I also like the sketches of the soapy uncle
and the confusion between M&D's narrative and that of the novel that
Tenebrae's reading.  Isn't there a connection between that and Argento's
plotline?

davemarc