A substantial group reading of V

[jporter]

M'D:

                       [snip, comments re: Millison]

> 
>
> Taking the "blunt knife" to M&D?  And, I guess, twisting down and to the
> right for maximum pain and a ghastly scar.
> 
> GR was an extraordinary and monumental work that I esteem as greatly, I
> think, as anyone who posts here.  Its greatness has not diminished at all
> with time, to the contrary.  However, it set up expectations around Pynchon
> that, seventeen(!) years later, were not met (I think most of us would agree)
> by Vineland; Mason & Dixon, however, particularly after rumors of a
> monumental civil war novel, seemed the sort of large-scope, epic project that
> might fulfill twenty-five years of waiting.


That does seem to be one of the problems, i.e., the waiting and
anticipation. For me that's more of a recognition of GR's special greatness,
then a failing of Mason & Dixon. An impossible hypothetical, perhaps, but if
GR had not been written until the mid 90's, I wonder how great it would have
seemed? It had the great good fortune of near perfect timing. There was just
nothing else like it...then. It was astounding. Given the expectations set
in motion by GR, Vineland was almost an inevitable (and I would argue
necessary) deceleration, and M&D, a remarkable achievement, if not as
remarkable as GR. Compare Pynchon's production with that of Joyce's, after
the equally ground-breaking, Ulysses. FW is remarkable, but... well, ask
your own Nabokov. 

A case might be made that certain works like GR or Ulysses are just so large
and "of their times" that they, if not close out a particular form (and I
know you don't agree with me there) then at least, make it damn hard for the
author in question to meet the expectations of his/her fans next time out.
Given the one example cited of Joyce (and maybe that is the only valid
comparison here), and my own 23 years of anticipation, M&D was a welcome
return to earth. 

> 
> I read the M&D with much hope and excitement, much of it well-placed.  Its
> scope is broad and deep; it's full of ideas, it's eccentric, it's
> intelligently considered, it speaks from various voices and styles.  But, in
> the end, it felt, and still feels to me, if not quite a total failure, not a
> success either. 

Taste rules, and I respect yours.
 
> 
> The decision to write a mock-historical novel seems ill-conceived, dated,
> cumbersome, and offers little in recompense.  The mock-eighteenth century
> prose and prosody is well-rendered, but it's not musical.  It didn't delight
> or thrill or drive me with the desire for more.  The paragraph on page 345
> that begins "Does Britannia, when she sleeps, dream?"  is a passage the
> beauty of which is beyond the reach of all but small handful of writers.  But
> it's the only such passage that stuck with me in the entire book.  There are
> probably others;  but there are hundreds such in GR, not just beautiful in
> the way that that passage is beautiful, but that wring beauty from places
> (like science) where few other writers, if any, could find it.

Again, taste rules. I found the book uncompromising, re: the prose and
prosody. Uncompomising is polite for pain-in-the-ass. But, second time
'round, I got the lift I was looking for... Then again, I'm just beginning
to appreciate rap.

>The framing 
> device with Cherrycoke and those children quickly became tiresome and
> annoying; the humor so-called--mechanical French ducks and colonial women
> speaking like valley girls--brought the occasional grin, no more.  In the
> end, I felt myself wondering why, given the ingredients, the book didn't
> soar.  My guess was it took too long aborning and whatever energy might have
> driven the initial conception, flagged over time, and died by the time the
> book was complete.

I agree that GR is much, much funnier. But, for me, M&D is a more serious
and mature work, which (I hope) mirrors my own state of affairs. The joint
stiffness and difficulty with small print must be worth something. And,
again, I can't help wondering how much of the manic genius of GR owes its
success to having been *first,* even self-consciously so, in form, topic and
tenor. Timing again: end of one era and the beginning of another. Even if GR
wasn't responsible for that unique cultural transition, it certainly caught,
better than any other work, the tenor of the times. Tough to do...twice.

> 
> Finally, given what it strives to be, I think M&D fails.  To be sure, it's a
> failure few writers have the talent even to attempt, but I think I am judging
> it on the terms it deserves.
> 
> This doesn't seem or feel to me the sort of eccentric opinion where one
> dislikes-- but can see what others will like in--a film, book, play,
> whatever, an opinion one knows will run against the popular position.
> Rather, I'm surprised such isn't the general consensus of M&D.  That it isn't
> (at least on this list) and that some seem to find the expression of such an
> opinion out of bounds, leads me to think, as I do, that the desire for M&D to
> be great, the worthy shelfmate of GR blinds.  Or the belief that Pynchon is a
> great writer; therefore, anything he writes is, ipso facto, great, does the
> same.

Yes, well, perhaps you're correct, re: the need by some to see or read
Pynchon uncritically. But I think you might be confusing your personal
enmities, which may be legitimate, with the feelings of list members, in
general, and you may be down playing the effects your own style sometimes
has on those you choose to enlighten. E.g., I enjoy hearing your comments
and comparisons re: other authors and artists- definitely a breath of fresh
air- but, if I had my preference, I would do without your too frequent need
to be defensive about it. It's not that insults offend me, just that they
seem more representative of the need to call attention to one's self, rather
than the topic at hand. Being distinctive, or calling attention to one's
self is not so bad, either, but sarcasm or insult seem to leave the least
margin for being interesting, as well.

It's not as if you're dumb and don't know what you're doing. I, for one,
enjoy your intelligence, sometimes enjoy your venom, but grow weary of the
long battles with Millison, e.g.

If you find mock-eighteenth century prose and prosody unmusical....

j.