SLSL "TSR" - climax, anti-climax

[Paul Mackin]

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 11:09, William Zantzinger wrote:
>
> 
> If P were to do a wall-to-wall rewrite of this story I
> think MMS Pinafore would be tossed in the dumpster.
> The fancy writing at the end, part apprentice make it
> literary show off stage one of Anxiety of Influence
> and part social censorship and part pre-adult sexual
> angst, 
> would be torn up, pulled down, dragged out, dumped. 
> 
> What would P do with Little Buttercup? Make her a
> fairy princess or witch? What? 



Although it would have been possible to use some different "cute meet"
gambit (Mason meets his Bekka over some kind of giant cheese, doesn't
he?), it's my feeling that the name-the-literary-quote game is an
essential element of the story.  

What would be left? A big, not terrible well realized, storm. Many dead
bodies. Do we really feel either of these things? I don't think so.
Without the literary stuff, what would there be for the young people to
talk about? They are, after all, chiefly displaced young humanities
majors with a few rather stereotypical  uneducated barracks slobs kept
around for color.  Buttercup is a still-in-place humanities major . Hard
to realize it now but back in the 50's young people of this stripe
really did talk a little bit like the Pyncher has them doing. Even a
Nathan, in spite of himself, couldn't have resisted letting a bit of his
college instilled wisdom fall thusly to earth..  This kind of preciosity
was not uncommon. Think of it like as how our present day sons and
daughters arrive home from college talking revolution and such. Back in
those days it was Hemingway and Eliot. 

I really do believe that regardless of whether we want to think of the
story as realism or as fantasy P's choice of HMS Pinafore was not a bad
one.

I vote for fairytale.

Mostly agree with Doug's post, which I just took a glance at. His
distinction between quote and use with regard to P and highbrow
literature is entirely valid.

P.