Gaddis and Pynchon

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/22/02 10:13:19 AM, MalignD writes:

<< I'm certain he has no interest in whether or not you or I like GR or don't 
like M&D, for that matter (although it's possible he would be interested if 
he knew; i.e., I'm not certain he would be disdainful, necessarily, of the 
opinions of his readers.)  But I'm more interested in what I think than in 
what Pynchon thinks, since I'm the one finding the time and making the effort 
to read the books.>>

But what do you think "he" means? "He" being any of a number 
of voices along the great chain of narration, beginning with 
"you."

<<GR was a book that reached in every direction at once--high and low, 
backward and forward in time.  It seemed precisely of the moment, although 
its setting in time was thirty years earlier, yet also seemed to describe 
some uncharted future.  I don't need to describe GR to anyone on this list.  
It was audacious, ambitious, bet the farm on itself, and won.  Such a book, 
such an author, creates fairly high expectations for himself and from his 
readers.>>

But, but:

<<I'm also (obviously, I suppose) making a metacriticism, that directed 
toward an attitude that seems to find any criticism of Pynchon out of line, 
an entrenched fealty that seems to believe every last line is a great line 
since it was written by the master and saying otherwise is not so much 
criticism as blasphemy.>>

could as easily be applied to your above adoration 
of GR, couldn't it?

<< Did you really enjoy slogging through 700+ pages of this sort of thing?:

"Thah' Wall?  eeh!  eeh!  it'll go through thah' wall!  No,-- all I ask, is 
tha' thoo hold the Tub up, but for a minute, whilst I go reconnoitre."

"Geometry and slaughter!"  ejaculates Squire Haligast, "--The future of war, 
yet ancient as the mindless Exactitudes of Alexander's Phalanx."

"Eeh, Mason, mind thy Wig now, for these are all good lads, they drink but in 
moderation, no more riotously than in Wapping, I am sure ...?"

"Arrhh ...  now am I entirely sedate, thankee."... >>

Not out of context, which you never seem willing
to provide. You refrain from interpretation, almost
as if the qoute most apt might be:

    Meanwhile, there all of you are, accosting
    Strangers in Taverns, spilling forth your
    Sorrows, Gratis. One day, if it be his Will,
    God will seize and shake you like wayward
    daughters, and you will thenceforward
    give nothing away for free. [661.35]

Not fair putting words in your mouth, I realize, but
plucking lines randomly, without providing any clue
as to your own sense of their meaning, does not
count as anything. 


<< I don't bring this stuff up just to pound on Pynchon and piss people off; 
I think it's necessary to seeing what he has and has not accomplished.  I 
would argue that the failure of M&D gives new and useful perspective to the 
accomplishment of GR, how singular it is.  It suggests that a book like GR is 
not only a matter of talent and genius, but those things operating in a 
particular time and place, perhaps only in the mind of a man at a particular 
time in his life.  I think that is the case. >>

Your opinion that M&D is a failure rests on nothing more
then that, which, of course, you are entitled to remind us
of as much as you like. But I cannot help reminding you that
you have failed to enter into any meaningful discussion
about specifics. What you offer could be gleaned by skimming
blurbs and reviews in newspapers. I am sorry but I find that
dull.

<<<<Tell us specifically what you like about Pale Fire ...>>>>

<< I'll be as brief as possible.  Pale Fire is a novel in the form of a 
999-line poem (entitled Pale Fire), the introduction to that poem, the notes 
to it, and an index.  On its most immediate level it is a satire of a 
particular sort of bad criticism and commentary.  However, the book is also a 
perversely structured puzzle and mystery that keeps unfolding onto 
ever-changing levels of story and meaning.  

Not only is it dazzling to read, there is also a great deal written about 
Pale Fire, about the relationship of its two main characters, Kinbote and 
Shade, a very intelligent subliterature of attempted puzzle solving.  Brian 
Boyd, Nabokov's biographer, has published two long essays on the puzzle of 
the book's internal authorship, the latter contradicting the former.  Richard 
Rorty has also written about it, and many others.  Which is to say that, if 
the book takes hold, its pleasures and conundrums may stay with you for a 
long time.  I can think of no book quite like it and so I recommend it. >>

All of which makes me wonder, if given the chance, i.e.,
if the list were to chose Pale Fire for the next PFPF,
would you be any more forthcoming wih what I can only
speculate must be some fascinating insights? But perhaps
my expectations would outrun reality.

regards