salesmandeath better than Vineland?

[Tim Strzechowski]

Oo-kay, I get the distinct impression you like _Vineland_ better??

From: "lorentzen-nicklaus"

>                         at least both are fruits ...

But face it, a play and a novel are written for different purposes,
difference audience expectations, different "timings," etc. A play by its
nature (unless its a closet drama) is meant to be performed, not read. So to
accuse _DoaS_ of simplicity is to accuse it of something which, by its
definition, it must possess to a certain degree if it is to be viewed by a
live audience, not read and reread by a reader for analysis.
>
>
>    yet does the play have acid, japan, crypto-humans, sado-masochism,
encouters
>    with the dead or sharp political satire? i also think that pynchon's
view on
>    women (only in this book, btw) is more adequate than miller's.
actually,
>    vineland is written from a female perspective: frenesi the heroine.

No, it has cigarettes, New England, football, a mistress . . . and
encounters with the dead. Satire isn't Miller's intent, but that's not to
say there isn't humor in the play. And although the women in Miller don't
seem to be prominent figures, I think his women (Linda, the mistress, the
girls, the secretary) help convey a social commentary not only for the time
period, but for the general role of women in American society.
>

>   yet if i'd had to choose between the two books now, my vote would
>   always go the much more ambivalent vineland. gives me more to think. and
to
>   feel. though it will never reach salesmandeath' canonical status (the
play
>   appears even in 'alf'), and though it's not as good as "gravity's
rainbow",
>   "der zauberberg" or "blood meridian", i personlly like vineland very
much.
>   maybe this has to do with the fact that i was born in the 60's second
half
>   into which i thus have an ongoing and passionate interest.

Yes, _Vineland_ is ambivalent. And ambivalence is necessary in the context
of that particular novel, and the themes it conveys, and the characters it
portrays. I wouldn't go so far as to say _Salesman_ is ambivalent too, but
there are elements of the play that cannot entirely be resolved (like the
role of Ben in the play, for instance). Maybe the ambivalence comes with
life experience, though. Ten years ago I might have agreed with you on
Miller; with a son now at my side here, my perspective on certain literary
works has changed significantly, this being one of them.  Go figure.

And in ways you hit it on the head: an ongoing and passionate interest. If
your interests lie in the subject matter, of course you'll prefer that
matter to something else, and that can't really be argued.  As a fellow
child of the Sixties (b. 1966), I too find literature and topics of that
time period fascinating. Far from being a "loser," Biff is a precursor to
the type of young man that would eventually become a Jack Kerouac --
decidedly nonconformist, physical, "poetic," romantic, and mobile. _Death of
a Salesman_ gives us the Beat figure in its infancy. A child of the Sixties
can surely appreciate that.

>
>   me is, by the way, pretty glad that we never read pynchon at
high-school. what
>   we did - the guy teaching hadn't had invented the wheel or anything but
knew
>   which books to celebrate - was shakespeare (romeo & juliet, macbeth)
orwell,
>   shaw, eliot, salinger (catcher), miller, albee, williams (tennessee, not
sweet
>   serena), fitzgerald & kesey's cuckoo's nest. i also insisted on william
blake.
>
> later, kai

Sounds like you read some awesome stuff there!  Cool!

Tim