Satire (was: Prosthetic Paradise)

[Derek C. Maus]

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:

> As to Satire, throw it out, 

But why would you want to do this? It seems to me to be missing the entire
point of the novel if satire is removed as *one* of its driving
motivations.

> Edward Mendelson says GR is an Encyclopedic Narrative, and I think his
> approach one of the best around.

There isn't really any prescription that says satire and encyclopedic
narrative can't coexist, is there? From my reading of their criticism, I
don't think either Mendelson or Kharpertian is making a claim for the
*exclusive* definition of Pynchon's work as Encyclopedic or Mennipean
satire, repsectively. 

If you want to be lit-crit pedantic about it, satire is a mode and
encyclopedic narrative is a genre, or subgenre, neither of which in any
way precludes (or demands) the use of the other. In less abstract terms,
it seems to me that the very nature of the encyclopedic narrative can be
used as a form of reflexive satire on the nature of what is and what isn't
fair game for narrative technique (cf. the "cetology" chapters of
MOBY-DICK; Barth's parody of Joseph Campbell-like theory of mythology in
CHIMERA). 

To my mind, there are satirical elements in GR (e.g., most sections
involving Major Marvy, Pointsman and anyone else in the novel who
subscribes to a fairly narrow perspective) and there are other sections
that are not intended as satire, at least not in a manner that has been
traditionally defined as satirical. Steven Weisenburger of GR companion
fame has a great book called FABLES OF SUBVERSION in which he claims that
American satirical fiction from 1930 onward resembles classical (Swift,
Pope, Twain, etc.) less and less, and discusses the relatively untargeted
nature of the satire of GR. Not always completely convincing, but he does
present a reading that allows for both satirical and encyclopedic aims.

> I am not trying to impose any particular approach, method,
> idea, term, school, and so on, I find the best of what has
> been written about Pynchon's beautiful books right here on
> P-L, where the medium makes the dialogue difficult, but at
> least I can, with the inexperience of unlettered Ishmael,

I'm not sure Mr. Reed would take kindly to your epithet here, Terrence (he
said, jokingly...)

> and with about as much skill as he possess in the art of
> whaling when he puts his seven ink marks on the page, toss
> my harpoon out into the fathomless deep of cyber-space, and
> discover something shared that the silent battle of the
> books has never revealed to me.

Let's hope you get a better lay of the profits than he did too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek C. Maus               | "What am I opposed to tell my customers?"
dmaus at email.unc.edu         | Swearingen said. "'Sorry, Washington says
UNC-CH, Dept. of English    | no more fanny packs for you; time to spend
http://www.unc.edu/~dmaus/  | your money on great works of literature'?
                            | It doesn't work that way."   --THE ONION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------