Abstract Fiction

[Paul Mackin]

I pretty much point in the same direction as David.

Let me ask a question however. Is it necessary that novels (novels that 
we also consider works of art)   say anything. Well, of course they 
can't help say  something.  But what I'm getting at is, isn't it better 
to judge works of art by what they do rather than what they say? 
Pynchon's gorgeous prose nearly always  stimulates my imagination 
regardless of what I happen to feel about the particular point he may 
seem to be making. I think P is almost universally acclaimed for his 
ability to stimulate the imagination (even by Gore Vidal), even among 
those with reservations about the deepness of his thought.

Incidently, having one's imagination stimulated is an excellent form of 
psychotherapy. Can't speak as a professional on this, only from personal 
experience.

P.



David Morris wrote:

>
> I think #2 below comes the closest to my intention of the word in 
> relation to Pynchon's writings.  He writes stories with plots and 
> characters, but unlike Hollander's approach which sees these as 
> representing other specific people and events, I think he's pointing a 
> more universal themes and concepts, less specific.  And he makes this 
> aspect of his writing very obvious with his use of capitalized 
> abstract terms like "the Mobility," "Analysis," etc.
>
> David Morris
>
> Main Entry: ab·stract
> Pronunciation: ab-'strakt,
> Date: 1542
> transitive senses
> 1 : REMOVE, SEPARATE
> 2 : to consider apart from application to or association with a 
> particular instance
> 3 : to make an abstract of : SUMMARIZE
> 4 : to draw away the attention of
> 5 : STEAL, PURLOIN
> intransitive senses : to make an abstraction
>
>
>> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
>>
>> Abstract. In other words, nonrepresentational. Line, color, 
>> composition. This works in painting. Or used to anyway. So we have 
>> novels made up of narrational elements that are aesthetic, 
>> entertaining, interesting in themselves, in their own right. Richly 
>> imagined people, situations,  events, historic connections, memory, 
>> desire, emotional pitch, plot complexity.  Each element and all 
>> elements combined and singly and together again all beyond 
>> interpretation. Not standing for anything but itself or themselves. 
>> Trouble is, writing nonrepresentational fiction requires special 
>> care. Story characters and story plots have a very strong tendency to 
>> be representational. Authors must take special steps to counter this 
>> and subvert  representation. Else we will find our Aunt Bessie or 
>> Uncle Albert in every scene. Pynchon subverts his representations 
>> quite a lot, even to a fault some might say. But of course he can 
>> only go so far in this direction. Pynchon might be a good candidate 
>> for "abstract" fiction writing. The idea has some importance--the 
>> idea of "beyond interpretation" I mean.  Don't know about the rest of 
>> you but once I decide what a novel "means" the whole experience is 
>> near ruined. I have taken things one step too far. Is that all there 
>> is? Who doesn't know THAT already? Screw interpretation.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>