GRGR(30): You will want cause and effect.

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Terrance wrote:


> Obviously GR does all of these things, however, McHale, and
> I think your comments as well, go further. It's this further
> that I wish to address. GR does not concur with McHale's
> description of the "PostModern" text because while it may
> subverts and ridicule novelistic conventions, those
> conventions still make up a large portion of the narrative.
> Pynchon does not break the author/reader contract, while it
> is clearly the case that GR badgers the reader with 
> subversive post-modern technique, it seems to me that what
> Pynchon has done in the text is what is obviously the case
> in all the conflicting aspects of the text, he sets up a
> tension, a Moderinst/Post Modernist tension if you will and
> neither side
> gives in. 
]

Think McHale might call this limit-modernist.

Terrance and I obviously both have problems with calling GR
postmodernist though I for one would like to maintain a position of
suspended judgment. Gotta think much more about it.

Was glancing at Jameson's _Postmodernism_ just now and noticed a couple
things. One, there is no chapter on postmodernist fiction. I suppose if I
were to dig deep enough I might find an explanation for this, but the fact
in itself seems important.

Two, I browsed though the chapter (or section) on Video and came across a
discussion of boredom as a possible feature of postmodernist video. And
not boredom as a feature necessarily of BAD video, but boredom serving
some necessary purpose. An assault on the audience perhaps.

So here's my question: Is GR ever boring enough to be postmodernist. I'll
admit it may be tedious, and fatiguing, and incomprehensible. But are
there ever passages in the book that could be thought of as a downright
assault on the reader? I don't think I experience it that way, at least
not enough of the time to matter.

I don't throw these two points out with the expectation that they could be
in any way decisive. Just interesting points.

I remember years ago now the p-list had fairly extended discussions of
whether GR was modernist or postmodernist. I don't remember what my
opinion at the time was. Seems to me the South African contingent--HG and
the late Craig Clark believed it NOT to be postmodernist. I could be
remembering wrong however.

	

			P.