Novel-Gazing

[MalignD at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/14/02 6:27:51 PM, keithsz at concentric.net writes:

<< I think this is what sets great art in general, and Pynchon's in 
particular,

apart from any one element in the alchemical stew that is the finished

product. Invisible forces, beyond the author's egoic intent, are at work in

the creative process, taking the prima materia (which includes philosophy,

history, autobiography, politics, economics, etc) and transforming it into

something which transcends the working materials. An openpsyched reader can

be taken into this force field in a way that transports him or her into a

transegoic state in which new perceptual, conceptual, prenuptial, and

voluptual capabilities are awakened. That's why they call it a novel. >>

I would like to think that this is how literary art works, but I don't.  

Perhaps action painting worked similarly to this, but a novel, a work that is 
the toil of, often, many years is, I think, far more controlled and 
deliberate in its processes than what you describe above.  There are novels 
that have been produced in ways similar to what you describe; Kerouac, I 
think worked this way.  Wasn't The Subterraneans a product of writing quickly 
out a sort of bliss state?  Not a very good novel.

Individual sentences, parargraphs, passages maybe.  But a novel of 
intelligence and complexity.  I don't think so ...