Pynchon's literary genius

[Dave Monroe]

I don't think I disagree with any of this.  Was speaking more to dismissals
of those little correspondences I think I've been finding, which seem to be
dismissed on grounds of not according with more general, more inclusive, more
whatever, readings, without necessarily being clued in as to what those
readings might be.  I also question rejections of certain readings on what
seem to be claims that, given Pynchon's "artistry" or "genius" or "stature"
or whatever, he could not possibly have intended something being ascribed to
him.  Not quite solid argumentation in either case.  "Great" texts can and
will most certainly have inconsistencies and weaknesses (which are not
necessarily teh same thing), "great" authors are most certainly capable of
inconsistent and weak writing, statements, sentiments, beliefs, whatever, an
can even write, say, believe some pretty appalling things, when it comes down
to it.  Some of these things can be attributed to "mere" historical
circumstance, but ... but is any of this true of Mr. Pynchon and His
Wond'rous Texts?  Not sure, but that certainly is a valid question to ask.
At any rate, even "geniuses," even "great" texts, are not necessarily
"perfect," certainly not for each and every reader.  Which by no means is
necessarily any sort of condemnation ...

Doug Millison wrote:

> No offense, taken, Dave, as we've discussed offlist. We can disagree,
> as reasonable people, on what might or might not be said about
> authorial intention.  I understand, I think, at least the broad
> outlines of the literary-critical approach that would refuse to
> consider authorial intentions, but I don't buy it.  Why limit reading
> in this way?  I think it's perfectly acceptable to approach a book
> like GR, or M&D, or Vineland, or COL49, or V., and take into
> consideration the text, and the author (including biographical
> influences and intentions, conscious or otherwise), and the various
> intersubjective realities that prepare us to receive such a book and
> which give us so much of the language and preconceived notions with
> which we respond to such a book, and take into consideration as well
> the actual social and material structures of the world around us that
> also play a part in the way we experience such a book -- there are
> lots of ways to read a book and talk about it, after all.  Why close
> off one or another of these avenues of delight, when you can enjoy
> them all? I truly don't see the need to "exercise extreme caution" ,
> I think it's perfectly OK to be all over the place when it comes to
> appreciating my favorite works of art, because the best of them are
> all over the place themselves.  I'm not working for tenure, after
> all, or concerned about having to fit in with a particular group of
> cultural workers who only accept one particular way of looking at
> that blackbird. Certainly in the hands of a good critic, any or all
> of these approaches can make sense and help us to better understand
> Pynchon's and the other literary masterpieces we spend time reading
> and thinking about and discussing and returning to again and again.
> I'm quite happy with the kind of literary essay that John Leonard
> gives us in his recent _New York Review of Books_ appreciation of
> Richard Powers, for example, which dares to consider Powers' life and
> artistic influences and the wonder of the texts themselves (or
> Coetzee's essay on Benjamin in the same issue), and the kind of
> reading of Pynchon that Charles Hollander provide, and the rather
> more austere approaches represented in the latest issue of Pynchon
> Notes (which itself does a fine job of offering apreciations of
> Pynchon's works that, in toto, cover most of the aspects I briefly
> sketch above, having published articles that deal with Pynchon's
> biography, & etc.). Certainly there's room for them all:  both/and,
> not either/or. If a critic chooses to play by a certain set of rules,
> that's fine, but that doesn't mean I have to agree to read that way
> or talk that way about that book, and that critic pursues an
> elistist, exclusionary approach to the degree that he or she
> castigates others for not following those particular rules. This is
> all ground you and I have covered offlist, of course, and I know that
> you know I'm intending no offense.
>
> At 4:42 PM -0600 1/7/01, Dave Monroe wrote:
> >Of course no offense intended, Doug.  Obviously, I've no doubt of
> >Pynchon's genius, either, else I certainly wouldn't get the books, do
> >the reading, post the posts, endure the hassle, and so forth.  I imagine
> >we're all in the same boat (Narrenschiff? Whatever ...) on that one.  I
> >just think one should exercise extreme caution in appealing, esp. in
> >merely appealing, to Pynchon's "genius," "vision," "artistry," whatever,
> >in arguing for or against any given reading, is all.  Or what he
> >"obviously" would or would not have "intended."  Which seems to happen
> >here from time to time.  Actually, I think it safer just not to invoke
> >such notions at all, but ... but I see there are still pockets of
> >nastiness here.  I think we all can ignore the outright insult posts
> >(666 being particularly beastly indeed, of course; okay, I've registered
> >my protest, fully expecting now ...), but I gotta ask, Terrance, kai,
> >staging this little spat for our benefit, or are we heading for all-out
> >Listal (cf. global) War here?  If the latter, well, then, of course, cut
> >it out.  Or if the former, for that matter.  What will the children
> >think?  Yrs ...
>
> --
> d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>