Pynchon and fascism

[Michael Joseph]

  But what of the craft of writing?  If a
> coherent POV is created by an author, what has he done in the craft of
> writing that resulted in your perception of a coherent POV?  What use of
> grammar, devises, rhetoric, argument, assonance, consonance,
> alliteration, meter, language, rhythm, repetition, et al., caused your
> perception of a coherent POV?  In other words, rather than defining what
> the POV is, define what in the text developed your perceived POV
> (whatever that might be).
>
Vincent, these are good questions and pursuing them intelligently may
produce engaging and significant insights. So, do it. Be this kind of
critic concerned with these issues and share the fruits of your work with
us.


> All this shit is ultimately fragile mind-sucking mental masturbatory
> practice as there are too many philosophical approaches to this buggery.

yech.

> My goal was to develop a discussion of the artistic process [. . .]
> analysis, and so on (not that I don't immensely enjoy those
> discussions--it just seems they dominate the list).

>From my short-term perspective, what seems to dominate the list is a
deeply grained sense of bitterness and resentment. But, I'm sure this will
change; perhaps your ideas about artistic process will spark new energy.

> author might go around screwing with the mental maps of readers, but
> doesn't necessarily give us insight on the artist and his process.
>
Right. Nothing "necessarily" gives us insight. that is one of the
cornerstone beliefs of postmodernism.

> So, my question is not what is the Author saying, rather what did he
> write that caused you to have that emotional and psychological response?
> What makes this writing resonate with you?  What coheres the POV for
> you?  What breaks the POV for you?  Does that break in POV change the
> emotional and psychological reaction?  In what manner?  Does this
> progress the story?  Is the piece effectively bringing about a coherent
> POV?  An understandable plot?  A consistent character?

If these are the questions that you find meaningful, then engage with
them, consider them, make them resonate for us. It's all very well for you
to say, I want to bring an Aristotelian perspective to this discussion,
but you have to do more than (permit me this simplification, I mean no
harm), gee, guys, whaddya think Aristotle would think about *all this*?


> And so on,
> leaving issues of did the author intend to echo Wittgenstein's
> perception of language as a response to and reproduction of reality...
>
Surely you can be more diplomatic. Exit gracefully. If Wittgenstein is not
your cup of tea, leave him for others. Let the magnitude of your
discoveries persuade others of the authority of your position.

> This, all, in application to the Foreward, SL, GR, COL49, VL, MD, and V.

But of course.


> V.
>

M.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Joseph
> >>On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Vincent A. Maeder wrote:
>
> >> . . . and a division (apparent only to me working amongst the deep
> >> lurkers here) that prose is somehow distinct from fiction for
> purposes
> >> of the artistic expression.  Not being literate in literary analysis,
> I
> >> can only approach this subject from the writer's point of view.  All
> >> writing contains a POV, and the goal of that writing is to create a
> >> coherent POV (while some will claim Pynchon is unable to maintain a
> >> specific POV, I would disagree arguing that his squirming into dream,
> >> hallucination, and so on creates the POV).  POV is also present in
> >> nonfiction or essayist literature as well.  For example, there is a
> >> difference in the POV of a work by Sartre versus Plato, yet they are
> >> both "prose".  In other words, simply because a piece is not fiction
> >> does not mean it cannot contain traditional fictional components of
> >> circumlocution, hyperbole, satire, deception and that ultimate POV,
> the
> >> unreliable narrator/POV, amongst others.
>
>
> >Vincent, Consider that stories often contain more than one first-person
> narrator (Mason/Dixon for ex.) and that deciding which represents the
> authorial voice is pretty tough. Even when we have a story like THE
> HUMAN
> STAIN, in which one of the two "focalized" (i.e. first person narrator)
> characters is identified with the author (Zuckerman/Roth), we cannot
> automatically ascribe greater credibility to his judgments, and,
> correspondingly, 'deprivilege' the judgments of the non-authorial
> narrator, Coleman Silk. In view of the fact that Coleman Silk (who, as
> well as being one of the focalized characters, is also the book's
> protagonist), is identified as an 'asynchronous' character (that is, our
> understanding of who he is experiences a vivid split over the course of
> the book), the issue of reliability crashes through the glossiness of
> Zuckerman/Roth's authorativeness. We are left with a sense of
> uncertainty,
> and some would argue, persuasively I think, that it is this uncertainty
> that enables us to review our own reading strategies, and thence the
> whole
> apparatus by which we negotiate reality. (For a diminishing band of
> diehards, this kind of introspection constitutes navel-gazing--an
> infinite
> regress in which what one is trying to define eludes definition and
> leads
> one away from What the Author is Saying. Oh, well.)<
>
>
>
>