Gaddis and Pynchon

[MalignD at aol.com]

The Millison:

<<Malign presents herself as a font of objective wisdom -- that's how it
sounds to me -->>

Well, that's you.

I'm wholly subjective, totally opinionated, and don't think I've ever 
presented myself as otherwise.  Further, I don't think all opinions are of 
equal value. Considered opinions should be valued, generally, over opinions 
formed rashly; in most cases, I value educated opinions over the opinions of 
those ignorant of a given topic (although it should be obvious that education 
can't do much for a tin ear).

It may be true that there is, finally, no objective standard, that art isn't 
a competition.  At the same time, I feel no hesitation in saying that Bach is 
a greater composer than Buxtehude, Faulkner a greater writer than Erskine 
Caldwell.  

One shouldn't be afraid of one's opinions; one should embrace them and argue 
them with passion, even if only for the sake of hearing better opinions.  Art 
is passion available to the intellect.   

And art is not for education.  Or, perhaps better, art--great art--educates 
only about itself.  Art is an ongoing conversation on the topic What is art?. 
 Art offers itself as an example of what art can be.  And I think that's 
about it.  If one learns factual things, historical things, from GR or M&D, 
well good, I guess.  Pynchon's a very good historian.  But if that's why you 
value the books, I pity you.  All this niddling around with M&D, the ideas, 
the research, what Pynchon's trying to tell us ...    That's all there; 
Pynchon's an intelligent man.  But the book, as art?  Greatness in art is 
moving the conversation significantly forward.  GR was a kick in the pants.  
M&D not.

And there are, after all, great historians.