Wolfe

[glthompson]

I'm not getting MalignD's posts as part of the list (and I don't think I've
filtered them). Are others having this problem, or is David reposting something
that went to him? I like what's excerpted and would like to read more. . . .

David Morris wrote:

> >From: MalignD at aol.com
>
> >style outpaces content.  As a result, after a novel or two, the writer runs
> >short of things to say.  This results in a fiction of involutions, fiction
> >about fiction, etc., the canon of modernism.  He argued against this and
> >for writers writing from a journalism model, going out and getting stories
> >and material and making their fiction of that.
> SNIP
> >The argument has merit, although it is patently simplistic and, not
> >accidentally, favors the approach Wolfe himself takes.  It is intended to
> >provoke and in that, it has proved successful.
> SNIP
> >I think it odd that it troubles you so that Wolfe operates out of a sense
> >of fun; one thinks of TP using Professor Corey as his proxy.  One can't
> >know for sure whether the reclusive Mr. P wore a smug smirk when he did
> >this.
>
> It's not the "fun" that annoys me, it's the patently simplistic
> arguments/social commentary he promotes, setting up so many straw dogs, all
> the while playing the utter sophisticate.  It seems he has an utter need to
> criticize or polemicize, and in the process he tramples over so much
> inherent subtlety.  I guess that's part of the nature of his method, which
> seems to require the insertion of HIMSELF as an implied, if not actual,
> character in all his "literature."
>
> Bottom line?  I guess it's just not my cup of tea.
>
> And then we have to see him on so many covers in that damned white suit...
>
> skirkingly,
> DM
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

And then we should pose the question of Whose interests his commentary serves.
This question also ties in with the other thread, w/ the discussion about
whether some Greenpeace actions (e.g., putting one's own body in the way of a
trawler in order to disrupt a whale hunt) can be considered terrorism. Is the
tree advising Slothrop to commit terrorism in removing an oil filter?

In Wolfie's case, he's joining in Rush Limbaugh-like ridicule of those already
marked out through media as worthy of contempt. Maybe they are worthy of
contempt, but there's little honor in jumping on the pile and giving them a few
more kicks. The posted reviews suggest that there's some good writing in Wolfe's
past--it's sad to see him come to this, is all.

Re Doug's post on the naivete of objective journalism: are there degrees of
objectivity? That is, can an article be more or less fair even if it
acknowledges that it's working from a subjective stance? Can we be comfortable
in discounting Pynchon's stand toward those in power because it comes from an
eccentric perspective? Personally I vote for degrees of fairness if not absolute
objectivity. Then there's the matter of generic expectations, in which readers
can be expected to grant some latitude to fiction writers but may be blindsided
by similar tricks on the op-ed page.

GT