SLSL Intro, incl., "As Nearly as I Can Remember"

[Mutualcode at aol.com]

MalignD:

>>If Pynchon believes his stories of high quality, and the irony 
of his Intro plays within the space between the stories themselves 
and his description of them, one must assume he believes the reader
will conclude similarly (if not, the irony is totally within Pynchon's head 
and the reader excluded, a rather perverse joke), in which case the 
irony in the Introduction becomes evident.  But that places Pynchon 
in a not very attractive and somewhat grandiose position vis-a-vis his 
stories and his readers; i.e., that his irony hinges on the self-evident 
quality of that to which he refers, revealing his pose of humility as, in 
fact, the opposite, a self-regarding vanity about the stories' quality that 
he is asking his readers to share.  The "plain folks" style in which the 
Introduction is written makes this irony, if it exists, only more 
unappetizing.<<

There is, of course, one other possibility, however unlikely.
That is, that the stories are actually much more intricately
wrought than anyone up to this point has come to appreciate.
Certainly aspects not considered previously might become
manifest here, as the discussion develops. It is not uncommon
for writers starting out to attempt too much. I believe the 
self-deprecating yet egoistic "Introducer" suggests as much,
later in the Intro. But Pynchon is a shrinking violet with a 
huge ego. He is a shy genius. His genius demands attention
which his shyness cannot tolerate. His pose may be less
planned than it seems. The irony which is there, either way,
may be all in the heads of the readers, i.e., unintentional;
an artifact of this writer's scrupulous efforts to avoid treading
on the reader's turf: "It's up to you" whether the stories are
any good. They are merely offered for your consideration,
by one of the most amazing writers in the language.

The other problem in the irony versus humility discussion, if
the Introducer is being candid and the stories are as weak as
they have always seemed, howbeit the incredible fecundity of
the later work? Does the difference, so striking, merely suggest
that Pynchon's artistic gifts are not suited to the short story form,
or more, that the short stories themselves are hints of problems
in his writing abilities- structural problems which loom even larger 
in the novels- but which Pynchon is usually able to finesse with
his quirky genius, given the larger canvas.


respectfully
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20021102/598ce769/attachment.html>