answering jody again

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:12:06 -0700

        [pardon the deletions, re: add anything you might want]
 
>In Pynchon's case, I don't really know, we're not there yet.  I do know
> that in the case of Marcel Proust, just to pull another author I
> enjoy reading and reading about off the shelf (or off the nightstand
> where I find him every evening), where we have lots of insight into
> what Proust thought he was doing with A la recherche du temps perdu,
> knowing what he thought he was doing (from his letters, what we know
> of his communications with his editors and publishers, etc. ) is just
> part of the mix of what readers and critics can bring with them to
> the novel; there's been a whole series of books published recently
> that do precisely this, pull together what we know about Proust and
> his novel and his era & etc., to help foster appreciation for his
> work by general (not academic) readers.  That's how I had the
> pleasure to read and enjoy many French authors when I was working on
> my undergraduate degree in French at UC Berkeley back in the Stone
> Age, and I figure if they can teach the great French novels that way,
> it's probably OK to advocate a multi-disciplinary, comprehensive
> approach to reading somebody like Pynchon.

But in Pynchon's case, unlike Proust, the author has done as much as
possible- including legal tactics, to avoid the public knowing anything at
all about him, including his personal opinions, except as contained in his
published non-fiction works. How do you interpret that in light of your
approach to appreciating his art?

> 
> Having said that, I'm also a reader who, the first time I encounter a
> novel, studiously avoids reading an Introduction that attempts to
> explain something about the novel (unless Pynchon has written that
> intro, of course).  I read it the first time and form my own
> impressions.  If it's something I want to come back to, I may then
> make the effort to find out more about it and its creator & etc.

Same question as above- re: the author attempting to deny you any personal
information.
 
> Yielding to the temptation to believe I've devined Pynchon's
> intentions would only become a problem, it seems, if I somehow had
> the power to force  everybody else to agree with my ideas regarding
> his intentions, and since I haven't that power, nor that desire, it's
> a moot point. I may try to change your mind, and as long as I'm civil
> about it, where's the harm in that?

I hate to be a johnny one note, but I would ask again: Given the author's
very overt acts to deny "us" with any personal information, and his
reticence, except the few examples we're all familiar with, regarding his
personal views, how can knowledge of authorial intention be based on
anything more than textual interpretation or speculation (Jules
notwithstanding).

jody