Gaddis and Pynchon

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/20/02 2:59:09 PM, MalignD at aol.com writes:

<< M&D (let alone Vineland) gives evidence to a solid intelligence, but one 
whose time has passed.  The craft is there, for the most part.  But to what 
end?  M&D is the sort of project a writing history professor might have 
written, Jay Parini, perhaps.  Not Pynchon.

 >>

The comparison to Mr. Parini is probably unfair to
both of them, but I assume you were looking to
emphasize your point, which is noted. The question:
to what end? is, from my amateur prospective,
what Pynchon seems to have asked himself and
answered with the creation of M&D. 

It goes back, I think, to James' essay on the art
of fiction. I.e., it's what he chose to write about.
One can piss and moan all one likes about his choice
of material, or, not read the book at all, but if one
is to judge the work as fiction, one should allow the
author his subject and judge him accordingly. One
might still arrive at the same verdict, but for
legitimate artistic reasons.

On the other hand, is it really so surprising that
an author who has shown no interest what-so-ever
in making himself available even to those fans who
adore him, should write a novel with no concern
for the needs or desires of the public? Pynchon
is one of the few authors who doesn't have to
answer, "to what end," since he answers only to
himself. Do you think he cares whether or not
you or I like GR? He writes what he wants.

I think there are tedious parts of M&D, but fewer
than GR, which swaps astounding brilliance with
large swaths of borderline intelligibility, and just
plain boredom. It's not interesting to listen to
complaints that M&D is not, in general, interesting,
more than once or twice. We get the message.

I would say, either engage the material and criticize 
or praiseit specifically, or, move on to something else. 
Tell us specifically what you like about Pale Fire, or GR,
or specifically what not about M&D. Otherwise, I ask
you- to what end?

regards