Tolerance and Allegory

[Paul Mackin]

Thanks, Heikki, for the information about the Wood piece in New Republic. 
It seems correct to say as you do that those elements Wood finds
suspect are what carries Pynchon along. He'd die without them. My interest
is in trying to understand certain problems I have as a naive reader
with P as fiction. Why don't I care more about what happens, as I
frequently do with other fiction writers? Why does Pynchon seem less like
fiction than thinly veiled social commentary, philosopy, science, and
of course linguistists? Plus, why do the proceedings feel ofttimes like a
big long extended joke (a very funny and brillant one of course if that's
what one is looking for)? I don't really expect Wood or anyone else to
provide anything major in the way of answers. Rather I already know the
answer. Pynchon is what he is and often I need something much different.
My problems with him don't I hope imply disrespect to him as the brilliant
gentleman we know and love.

		Naively, P.



> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Paul Mackin wrote:
> > I've read a few glowing reviews of the Wood book but
> > nobody says much about the Pynchon chapter. I ordered the book--should
> > have just walked down the street to Borders--so'll have to wait.
> 
> Paul:
> 
> while waiting for the book to arrive, you (and others interested) can
> check the review of _M&D_ by Woods in _New Republic_, which I gather 
> is practically identical with the chapter in the book. Don't have it 
> handy now, but it came out in _NR_ during the summer of '97. Anyone?
> 
> If the memory serves me, Woods' idea was that all TRP texts have an
> allegorical tendency, which in the last instance petrifies them. Now 
> this is bullshit; I would say that the unsettled quasi-allegorical 
> impulse in Pynchon is on the contrary vital to keep the ball bouncing.
> 
> Heikki 
>