John Barth Vs. Pynchon

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Otto Sell" <o.sell at telda.net>
>

> Where do you get the impression from?
> Pynchon is mentioned on page 2 of the 'Replenishment'-essay (Who are the
> postmodernists?), page 195 of my edition of "The Friday Book" (1984, 1997).

But apart from the token mention there (and it is in fact Calvino and
Marquez who epitomise the replenished postmodern fiction Barth envisages in
the remainder of this essay) I don't think I found another reference in
either collection (I could be wrong.)

> And Pynchon has written several intros for other writers (Richard Farina,
> Jim Dodge

... and Don Barthelme, a review of Marquez's _Love in the Time of Cholera_ I
think &c. I agree that the fact that Pynchon hasn't written about Barth or
his work isn't significant, and that there are similarities between them (I
actually think Pynchon outdoes Barth in _M&D_, however). But I'd be very
interested to find out whether Barth's courses ever prescribed one of
Pynchon's novels, what he might have said in lectures &c.

best


> - he could have said something about "Chimera" too. But he's of
> course heavily referring to the "Sot-Weed Factor" in M&D, not only with
> Timothy Tox and the Pennsylvaniad.
> I'm sure they both like each other's literature. Pynchon surely did not feel
> the urge to speak about Barth's novels because Barth himself was already
> telling so much about it, and Barth best could react to Pynchon's silence
> about his own work by being silent about it too, let others do the work.
> In getting Barth I would not concentrate on the two above mentioned essays
> which are quoted and recalled ever and ever. For me his "highlights" are
> "How To Make A Universe" and "Mystery And Tragedy: The Twin Motions of
> Ritual Heroism" from "The Friday Book" where he speaks about literature in
> general - and this includes Pynchon.