McHoul & Wills' chapter Re: SLSL Intro "Almost But Not Quite Me ..."

[Paul Mackin]

David Morris wrote:

>--- William Zantzinger <williamzantzinger at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm not disappointed. At least you didn't transfer your scorn for M&W to Dave
>>    
>>
>Monroe.
>
>Rob's scorn was mostly aimed at M&W, even though he used the "ad nauseum"
>descriptive.  Mr. Monroe was understandably irked since his effort is not one
>to convince, only to provide content.  M&W represent content that should be
>seen here, even if discredited by many.
>
>  
>
I doubt if even M&W's aim was "to convince."  I believe the book was put 
together pretty much as a lark. It certainly reads that way. They took 
note early on of the fact that Pynchon criticism had to date been with 
few exceptions what they called "humanistic." (Were they right in this? 
I'm definitely not well versed I believe what they meant by humanistic 
was non-method). Why not try deconstruction, they said. And did. Perhaps 
it is not very good deconstruction. Perhaps deconstruction is no longer 
the method to apply to great writers. Once it could be demonstrated (by 
a few select semi-geniuses) that deconstruction applied to all writing 
(good and inferior) what was the point of gilding the lilly? But they 
did. Then Hanjo B. decided to go a step further and apply not one but 
three methods simulteously.
Now that was too much. I'm sure Dave would agree.

I'm probably writing from complete ignorance. Haven't looked at the book 
for a long long time.

Alec McH used to be a p-lister for you who haven't been around forever 
like me.

P.