Opinions are like underwear

[Terrance]

Every novel is a unique project. But if we treat every novel as simply
and only  a unique project, we can not have a "science" with which
to study them, talk about them, compare them.  We can't compare them
unless we have such a science. Unless we are going to sit around like
the whole sick crew and toss around a bunch of Freudian cant and
opinion, we need to get a bit more "scientific" about all this.  I've
read Pale Fire. Can't remember it, much less talk about how good it is
and why. We have to agree to discuss common texts. I might pick up Pale
Fire or JR or Group Portrait with Lady or Song of Solomon, The German
Lesson, or any of my old favorites and re-read them if I can find a few
people to read these. Or something new to me or to the group--Rick
Moody's new book or Dick's new collection of whatever. But unless we can
agree to discuss common texts,  what's the point? What's the point?
Apples, Oranges, Bananas, Grapes? It's all just insecurity. Isn't it?
Isn't it really about what you got in your fruit-of-the-looms? Isn't it
all about your underwear? Sure it is. 

So we have criticism. Don't like lit-crit? Fine. It's just a bunch of
theory and tools and jargon, but it helps. 

And,  Criticism is itself an art. Critics are not parasites
feeding on the art of artists. No! They are important and without them,
well we would not even have some of the great works we fight so much
about. More importantly, criticism has a long history and the novel has
a relatively short history. So, we are still working out a "science" to
study
novels. 


Now, some don't like pigeon holes, boxes, classifications, etc.
and one can always stand firm and on solid ground and dismiss all
attempts to classify--in genres or otherwise. But remember, it is
Pynchon and not simply critics that opens the "encyclopedia" of texts
and cultural allusions by writing  and writers and critics have a
reciprocal relationship. 

I may not like the term postmodern or postmodernist, but that won't stop
me from reading McHale or Weisenburger. Terms can get in the way. So can
theory. Isms of this and that, but these can help frame a discussion,
give it some reason to exit other than who has a bigger banana in their
fruit of the looms. 


I agree with S~Z, M&D is a fun book for an internet read. As is most of
Pynchon. I'm not sure that A Dying Animal would hold the interest of
this group or generate all the side shows and encyclopedic research we
have so much fin with round here, but you never know. 

Of course there is nothing wrong with opinion, but to what end here on
P-L? 
To argue for argument's sake? 

Ulysses towers over the rest of Joyce's writings, and in
comparison to its noble  originality  and  unique  lucidity
 of thought  and  style  the  unfortunate  Finnegans Wake is
nothing but a formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a
cold pudding  of  a  book, a persistent snore in the next room,
most aggravating to the insomniac! I am. Moreover, I always
detested regional literature full  of  quaint  old-timers  and
imitated pronunciation.  Finnegans Wake's facade disguises a very
conventional and drab tenement house, and only  the
infrequent snatches   of   heavenly   intonations  redeem  it  from
utter insipidity. I know I am going to  be  excommunicated  for
this pronouncement.