New Statesman, May 5, 2003, pp. 47-48

[Heikki Raudaskoski]

On 3 Jun 2003, Paul Mackin wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 20:09, jbor wrote:
> > I'm wondering whether Dugdale's comment is actually a criticism of the film,
> > aimed (somehwat uncharitably) at some or all of the Pynchonistas interviewed
> > by the Dubini, rather than meaning to suggest that Pynchon really is
> > irrelevant to "the cultural present"?
>
>
> This seems right enough. However, going deeper, what IS "the cultural
> present?" Isn't there a wide diversity of cultural presents? Who would
> have the temerity to suggest a universalizing force fit dominant one?
> Don't our backward-looking geeky ones constitute a cultural present
> every bit as legitimate and defensible as our hip-swingers do? Call the
> former the cultural-present-other, or call them the historic past. But
> whatever you do call them to the Big Table shared by all.
>
> P.


Dugdale does seem straightforward. The whole story starts with the
statement that Pynchon's "incluence on popular culture is pervasive".
As someone from the old school, Dugdale separates literature from
popular culture, arguing that in literature Pynchon's "key influence
(most clearly discernible in Salman Rushdie and Peter Carey) is in
pioneering a form of learned, larky costume fiction that may play
parodic and ironic games [...] yet recreates and peoples the past
with what he calls 'historical care'". Elsewhere Dugdale laments
that the Dubini Bros "leave the impression of a relentlessly grim
author, whose work is dominated by pre-apocalyptic dread", ignoring
the funny and playful side of Pynchon. All in all, I would say that
this review by Dugdale is quite a typical piece of weekly journalism,
and, in that polemical genre, OK.


Heikki