pynchon-l-digest V2 #1610

[Terrance]

jporter wrote:


> If Paul is hinting that "the rest of us" are by necessity required to
> define, protect and otherwise repair the social fabric of which we form a
> part, rather than relying on some clue, lesson or whatnot uncovered in the
> works of tpr, I am in agreement. I think the most important "lesson" which
> can be derived from any and all of them is just that.

Right, that's how half of P's critics see it. The
Weisenburger half say, but the other half, the Eddins half,
the Hollander half, the Satire half, they don't see it that
way. 

> >
> That's most of it. Whatever the possible meanings, is there anything which
> can be salvaged from the deconstruction of the text that might "help us?"
> Leaving aside authorial intention for moment- i.e., whether the author
> intended such potentially beneficial aspects or not- is there anything in
> the texts that is worth the trouble of reading, interpreting, bickering
> about, other than entertainment? [Entertainment is enough for me, by the
> way, anything else is gravy]

Entertainment, that's it. The Weisenburger half, although
they use the term Satire, they see at as a new satire of
entertainment only. The lesson is, there is no lesson to be
had here. Except the postmodernist lesson of course. 

Weisenburger asks, If P writes satire,  What is the Object
of attack? The target? 

What does it seek to correct? Is it corrective? 

These are tough questions. Hollander, as Dave intimated,
takes a Big risk. He says the target is quite personal. P
has been disinherited! 

Satire? 

What is it? Is it a  literary work which belittles or
savagely attacks its subject?
Is satire  an  artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic,
in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or
shortcomings are  held up to censure by means of ridicule,
derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with
an intent to bring about improvement? 

To bring about improvement sometimes? Is that what P is up
to? Doug will point to his prose. Does he write an essay
about Watts so he can feel better inside or because he can?
Is he working off some sin? Or does he hope to show us
something wrong so that we may improve it or correct it. 


> 
> If alligators might be willing to suspend their belief in "the contract,"
> why not readers?

Is this the reader contract?