The vision thing ...

[Dave Monroe]

... but another questionable tendecy in argumentation here is to start
from some presumption of Pynchon's "genius" (MacArthur Foundation grant
or no), his "artistic vision," whatever, already problematic in and of
themselves, and even more problematic when summoned in defense of or as
the basis for any given reading of a text, esp. in the service of some
sort of Platonist, romanticist, New Critical, old skool Marxist, for
that matter, whatever, notion of the "organically" or otherwise "whole,"
totalized text.  "Pynchon is a genius, therefore ..." hardly suffices as
the foundation for sound critical argument.  To quote the "Objectivist"
chorus, "check yr premises."  Sound about right there, cap'n?  Anyway
...

But before the indignant inquisition arrives ("Nobody expects the ...
our weapon is smear, smear and surmise"), do I think Pynchon is a
genius, an artist, whatever?  Of course, else I certainly wouldn't still
be bothering with all the hassle here.  I'd prefer not to harbor any
illusions about what that might entail, given the operations of
language, of literature, of textuality, and so forth.  Just wouldn't be
deconstructive of me, non?  Which is not to say that one shouldn't read
for coherencies, for authorship, for genius, even ...

That ethics of reading, that ethics of deconstruction ((c) Simon
Critchley), that reading as if you are reading a text indeed written by
an author, one who is indeed coherent, knows what s/he is saying, doing,
one that should indeed be read charitably, in perhaps that Levinasian
sense of the gift given freely, without any expectation of or desire for
return.  Which is precisely where that "double reading" comes in, that
ethical realization that the gift is precisely that which is not, should
not, is not expected or desired to be returned, that, given the gift of
a text in the first place, one should not merely return an author's text
to her or him in perhaps the sense of recapitulation, of "getting" it as
it was "intended" ...

But I'd also note that I do explicitly offer, as in the case of Benny
Profane's parodic flanerie, localized readings of specific instances,
or, as in the case of that Baudelarian and beyond thematics of the
feminine automaton as emblematic of modernity, tentative notes toward
apparent contexts.  I'm not sure why I'm being read as claiming anything
else, anything "more," but ... but sorry to be particularly cranky
today, ev'rybody (well, maybe not everybody ...), my horoscope told me
to go from "nice" to "feisty" this year, so ...