Is M&D as good as GR???

[David L. Pelovitz, Ph.D.]

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Sojourner wrote:

> At 01:32 PM 9/12/97 -0400, David L. Pelovitz, Ph.D, the distinguished
> and happily unprepossed kind and beneficient doctor wrote:
> 
> >My view of the early criticism of GR is that a lot of people recognized
> >it was important, bu thtey really didn't know what to make of it 
> >entirely.  Comparing it to earlier works and tracking down obscure
> >references seemed a good way to start.
> 
> Curious where you draw this observation from, this generalization.
> I find it akin to seeing a Dali painting, and then not feeling you can
> enjoy it until you research his background, and then quantify the
> symbols and meanings of his paintings.
> 
> Seems like a 5 year old child's approach is more appealing to me.
> 
I don't believe that I say your approach is wrong.  I don't believe that
what I saw going on in the early criticism of GR was right either.
I would agree with you that the 5 year old child's approach can
be both appealing and effective.  It was my initial approach to GR.

> >  At this point, certain themes are associated with Pynchon

> aka now that I've built my bridge on air, let's place some
> soldiers on it.
>
Perhaps that is a good metaphor for the process I'm describing.
I would object to having it called "my bridge" though.  I was
responding to Andrew's post re:comparisons between GR and M&D
in which he also pointed the limitations of the initial criticism
of GR.  By stating that critics (and non-critical readers)
associate themes with Pynchon in no way says that I either
agree with that practice or subscribe to any particular 
associate themes personally.

> > (it seems like any book with
> >the word "paranoia" in it will be called "Pynchonesque" by some
> >critic) - 
> 
> A critical critic sure, because anyone who senses danger which
> is inside of a society is "paranoid".  

	(much deleted about COL49 and the USPS)

> A novel written for nothing but money doesn't deserve such
> a biting comment my good doctor.
>
What I am saying (and apparently not clearly enough) is that
this kind of association goes on.  I don't recall which review I read
of "The Net" labelled it Pynchonesque, though I remember
thinking the term had been misapplied when I saw the film.

> >so its easy to fall into the pattern of measuring new
> >works by how well those themes resonate. 
> 
> First thing you've said I can agree on.  Your foundation tho
> is shaky like my right hand after two days of detox.
>
Actually, if you agree with me there, you probably agree with
what I intended in my initial response.  I'm sorry tht wasn't clearer
initially, though I am still having some trouble seeing where I 
implied what you seem to think I implied.
 
> A more accurate way to say this would be that people came
> upon TRP, were shocked by its beauty, stimulated by
> its presence, and awed by its genius.  Then hopefully they
> studied the works more, saw its roots and structure, and
> loved it for the work of art that it is.  Then a new novel
> comes along, and we aren't looking for the shock.  We say
> we are, but our minds are closed, and want the same, always
> the same.  
> 
You presuppose that no critic will feel the need to make sense
of something before studying it carefully.  My experience is
that erroneous practice goes on all the time.

> Compare any religious convert to a life-long member.  But
> beware, the religious metaphor is a dangerous one, because
> there is no "faith".  TRP's words are all there are, and aside
> from a few bucks, he asks nothing in return.
> 
> They are only entertainment -- so when baby gets a new
> brand of milk, he cry like a debbil.

And now your argument seems to be with the practice of literary
criticism itself.  Which is fine by me.  But I would think
that you wouldn't want to argue so intensely against someone
who was trying to explain why criticla pracitices are sometimes
flawed.

> > For me M&D (like Vineland)
> >includes many of Pynchon's standard themes, but his presentation
> >and applications of those themes is radically different.  
> 
> ever tried soy milk?  Runs like Hayes but tastes like s---.
>
To be honest, I like soy milk.
 
> >An obvious example would be that V., Lot 49, and GR all depend
> >on binary opposition to examine the rightness or wrongness of
> >dividing the world.  
> 
> Seemplestic good dokkah, but we'll allow it.
>
True.  That's why I called it an obvious example.
 
> >In M&D, the idea of division is examine
> >through the line - which is to say his attention has moved from
> >the polar extremes to the middle.

> Sneeg.

> I wonder...  if Mason and Dixon weren't surveyors who drew
> a line, would that be your analysis?
>
I would.  I see it in the reference to the great chain of being,
to the measuring chains, to lines of narrative, and, yes, the 
West Line.  I also see it in the use of "Mason & Dixon" rather
than Mason-Dixon.
 
> >David Pelovitz, Ph.D. - pelovitd at gusun.georgetown.edu
> 
> Georgetown eh?
> 
> And what department would that be again?

Here's the one place I can see where I might have mislead you.
Though my account is at Georgetown, I do not teach there.
I teach in the English department at George Washington University
(part of my adjuncting tour).  Since you seem to want to know
my credentials (and not to imply this in any way makes my opinion
"authorized"), my Ph.D. comes from NYU's English department and my
dissertation topic was TRP.
	
David Pelovitz, Ph.D. - pelovitd at gusun.georgetown.edu