Coventry, Kennedy, etc

[John Bailey]

Which Coventry, which Kennedy?
I haven't much to add to this, except some questions.
It's a much bigger debate, of course, than I could attempt to resolve, but I 
wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Pynchon's statement 'I found it 
blessedly post-ironic...' in his blurb to The Testament of Yves Gundron. It 
makes me think of how difficult I find it to determine whether many aspects 
of his work are satirical, polemical, ironical, pointless...and this of 
course has sparked many an argument here. This probably stems from both the 
contradictory element of his writing and the vastness of the terrain it 
covers, as well as the lack of any ability to really *know* where Pynchon is 
coming from. Making a definite 'Pynchon is pro-... and anti...' statement is 
really tough. If this lack of a base from which to gauge this stuff is a 
'post-ironic' stance, in which Capt Kennedy and the good ship Coventry could 
mean any number of things (or not), why does Pynchon go for such a tactic? 
Or am I in error? Does Pynchon consider the post-ironic to be synonymous 
with the transparent, heartfelt truth, undisguised by fancy pomo posturing 
(as if).

And in other news, the Post-Ironic Pig:
http://www.geocities.com/post_ironic_pig/home.htm


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com