Pynchon's literary genius

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:14:50 -0700

> 
> 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 don't know about "literary-critical approach" because I do not have time
to read much published criticism, and I am sort of embarrassed to admit that
I have learned most of what I know about same, right here, or elsewhere on
line. I would say, though, that one of the greatest dangers concerning the
divination of authorial intentions might be the temptation to believe that
you have actually divined them.

>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? 

But what would be the effect of actually knowing the author's intentions on
all the other ways of understanding and appreciating the book, some of which
might be even be more interesting than the author's, or at least as good?
Besides that, why should we be so sure the author understood all his or her
intentions at the time of creation? Do you understand all of your actions?
Isn't that another possible insight available from the luddite essay-

"It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us
devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed."


>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.

But doesn't believing that there is some author sanctioned "correct" view
automatically crimp your appreciation?

>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. 

But you are a proponent of delving for what you think the author intended,
no? How do you feel about interpretations, responses, etc., that do not jibe
with what you think the author intended, including the notion that focusing
on what the true authorial intention may be limits the creativity of the
reader. No matter blatant the author of a text might be, isn't it in the
nature of works of art, worth the label, take on a life of their own? I
guess I would cite _The Wasteland_ complete with the author's supplemental
explanatory notes as the proto-typical example. I can empathize with the
author, but when someone, say Max, comes up with a keen insight, which I get
a kick out of, Max gets the credit. Whether Pynchon intended the
interpretation or not, doesn't bother me. I do not need P's permission to
see what I can see.

>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.

How do you define "good critic.?"

> 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.).

It's a shame that back issues of Pynchon Notes are not likewise available on
line, as least a few selected articles from each issue. It is not exactly
available at the local, for perusal prior to purchase. It seems more the
exclusive domain of those who might be seeking tenure, or, with
discretionary time and income.

>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.
> 

I apologize for butting in here, as your post seems directed to Dave, but
since you chose to share it with the rest of us, I'm hoping that you might
clarify your points somewhat, in light of my response.

jody