COL49: The beginning is the beginning is the end

[jbor]

on 7/31/01 4:32 PM, calbert at hslboxmaster.com at calbert at hslboxmaster.com
wrote:

>> I think it wise to follow Occam's advice and, real evidence to the
>> contrary, assume that Pynchon is simply calling a collection of
>> not-so-great stories not so great.
> 
> I would credit that position if there was any more evidence of
> Pynchon's "playing nice" with his readers and critics. It may be out
> there, I'm simply not aware of it..... obliged by editors to supply a
> foreword to SL, I don't think he would strip just because he was
> asked......rather, I suspect he would take the opportunity to
> continue "the game".......again, if viewed through the prism of
> Driblette, this appears a credible theory.....and I have a very difficult
> time determining when Pynchon is being "sincere", and am prone
> to believe that he choses not to share that side......that crack
> about having forgotten everything that he had learned to date
> seems hyperbolical.....

I don't think it's hyperbole at all, and it's not quite what he writes
either. The words are carefully chosen: _Lot 49_ is the novel "in which I
seem to have forgotten most of what I thought I'd learned up till then."
He's not only saying that _Lot 49_ is inferior to 'The Secret Integration';
he's also commenting on his youthful over-confidence, saying that it was
only what he "thought" he'd "learned". The collection is entitled (by
Pynchon himself, I suspect) "Slow Learner", and it's this notion which is
taken up here, and which serves as an extended metaphor throughout the
introduction. Because of this I believe that of all the pieces in the
collection this autobiographical reminiscence is perhaps the most
significant, and I certainly agree with Pynchon and MalignD about the
unevenness, even mediocrity, of some parts of the stories. The fact that it
is the one and only quasi-autobiographical text which Pynchon has published
seems to me evidence enough to credit the notion that he is being
straightforward: he would have been under no obligation at all to write a
foreword and so I think it is safe to assume that he had wanted to write it,
and that part of the reason that he wanted to write it at all is because of
the unevenness and immaturity of some of the stories themselves, which is
just what he says. I get the impression in the intro that it's as if he has
*had to* dust these stories off and publish them. Also, I'm very suspicious
of those (not cfa of course) who try to label some texts or sections of text
as "ironic" simply in order to discount them, particularly when this
strategy is applied selectively to perpetuate a distorted interpretation of
the writer or his work.

best