Elitist Pynchon-ites

[slothrop]

Terrance wrote:

<<There was a time, not too long ago, when literary theory was
replete with references to "the informed reader," "the
competent reader," the ideal reader," and so on. All of
these suggest a certain distinction, some would say, a
downright condescension towards, the ordinary reader. The
ordinary reader, as I choose to think of him, is a guy like
me. I have a certain passion for literature, but I devote
only a part of life's brief span to reading-doing so, not as
a professional but for personal satisfaction.>>

The problem of definition has been haunting every attempt at clear,
coherent, "sane" thinking since the dawn of philosophy. What does Terrance
mean when he terms himself "an ordinary reader?" The interpretation he
provides is that he is a non-professional reader. That, somehow, doesn't
seem to me to deserve an adjective such as "ordinary", which certainly has
overtones of "averageness" - in a strongly negative sense. Let us forget for
a moment the professional reader. A book is not written for him, anyway,
just as a piece of music is not composed for the musicologist who will try
to analyse and/or judge it, but for the listener (in a concert, preferably)
who will savour it - or hate it, no matter. A book is written to be read by
the rest of us. (Not all of us, mind you: every book - as every work of
art - has a "target audience.") How each one of us relates to a specific
book depends on a wide variety of things. I won't go into that. My point is:
I have a number of friends who could be considered "informed" or "competent"
readers; all of them have a copy of GR in their native language (Greek); a
few, not having to deal with a language barrier, have an edition in English
as well; none of them have finished reading it - in fact, only one of them
has made it past the first 100 pages. And one told me he couldn't read it
any more because he hated the way it played with his mind. Let's face it:
Pynchon is very demanding, and he is so by choice; his work is not for
everyone, and those of us masochistic enough to engage in the arduous task
of working through his novels word by word are aware of that. An "ordinary"
reader wouldn't make it through a book like GR, even with the help of the
invaluable (but not infallible) Weisenburger's Companion.

Again, Terrance wrote:

<<Should our admiration for the brilliant musician denigrate my humbler
effort? Should my
fingers be broken, my piano smashed and tossed on the fire? There is some
value in my performance isn't there?>>

In that order, Terrance, no, no, no, and yes. The difference is that your
performance will not give your listeners (assuming there are any, otherwise
you are playing for yourself, in which case there is nothing to be said) an
idea about what Mozart's work is like. It will just be you pressing some
keys on a piano. A "good" performance of a Mozart piece would give the
listeners a fairly good idea; a great performance (no quotes here) would add
something (even perhaps some new insight) to the general idea of what Mozart
is about. Sorry if this seems too simplistic, but I can't go deeper right
now. Maybe later...