ohne Betreff

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Millison" <pynchonoid at yahoo.com>
To: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:04 AM
>
> Good point, Tim.
>

Bad points, Doug.

> jbor may be a bit defensive because he seems to
> support a hierarchical structure of readers in which
> some "get it" and some don't -- although jbor doesn't
> supply the criteria by which to sort one reading into
> one or another of those categories,

Simply untrue -- Robert has never shown any other approach to P's works than
the postmodernist.

> it seems to be
> based more on whim than on anything else.

Ad hominem-attack.

> jbor moves
> through Pynchon's texts, collecting this or that fact
> to illustrate this or that reading, at the same
> criticizing other readers who do the same.

I can't remember a single case, except yours of course. Robert's
postmodernist approach is mostly based upon the texts.

>It's quite
> inconsistent, not to mention arrogant; that's one of
> the things about this style of literary discussion
> that makes it so difficult to sustain a topic for very
> long in conversation with readers like jbor.
>

Can you give any evidence for this? For my part I can remember fruitful
discussions with Robert on "the screaming" or the question whether Enzian
had been molested by Blicero or not where I had a different opinion than
Robert -- without the need to become insulting.

> While I don't claim any unique insight into Pynchon's
> intentions,

See my other post.

>based on the broad range of material he
> brings into his books, the broad spectrum of genres
> and literary techniques he applies to his material,
> the vast number of voices and perspectives he adopts,
> his eclectic taste -- I suspect he wants people to be
> able to respond to his works in many different ways,

I call that "genre fucking" (Nika Bertram) postmodernism. I cannot imagine
that he wants his novels to be read & understood in a 19th Century
pre-modernist style or the Bible.

> and, further, I suspect (but of course don't know for
> sure) that one reason he distances himself from
> academic criticism of his work is precisely because of
> the arrogant and elitist approach taken by some
> critics in that quarter.

Once you were praising Pynchon Notes, now you are critisizing it.

> Some readers who
> consistently try to squeeze Pynchon into this or that
> literary-critical-theoretical box don't seem to stop
> and think that Pynchon may in fact be laughing, at
> times, at that sort of discourse  (hence something
> like that Deleuze and Guattari Fake Book in Vineland,
> perhaps), even as he also, at times, seems to
> understand the value of upholding many points of view
> and a sophisticated narrative approach.
>

"this or that" -- can you be more precise, please.

> I find it useful to remember that Pynchon is primarily
> a novelist, not a theorist who choses to focus his
> publications on literary criticism.

And I find it useful to remember that the postmodernist approach has been
developed by critics reading novelists like him, for example the late Joyce
or Beckett, or novelists who deliberately blur the difference between
novelist and critic like John Barth.

> Without him, what
> would Pynchon critics write about, after all?
>

About other novelists of course.

> Tim Strzechowski:
> > I question the importance of "get[ting] it."[...]
>

I don't know what *it* should be in this context other than the already
mentioned "bottom". The importance of literature of this kind lies in
freeing the author, the critic and the reader from the "mental hostage" (I'm
quoting David Morris here) of religion, history and other external reference
points Western logocentrism is based upon.

Otto

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de