Vineland underrated

[jbor]

>> We're all pretty confused about it...VL is certainly not an
> overt Left-Wing novel.

on 26/9/03 2:45 AM, Mike Weaver wrote:

> King Terrance - it might be an idea if you were to say what you think makes
> an overt Left Wing novel - the capitalisation was your addition, and 'overt
> ' is a useful get out addition, John simply called it left-wing.

Actually, he wrote that "Pynchon's overt left-wing views in Vineland may
have helped earn him the negative reviews", which isn't correct anyway. And
I think _Lot 49_ is the novel which is most often recommended as an
introduction to Pynchon's work, not _V._.

IMO it's his least interesting novel, but it's interesting nonetheless. And
the bulk of the novel's satire and criticism is aimed squarely at the
stereotypical lefties and their descendants who comprise the majority of its
cast and the major focus of the narrative. This is not to say it ultimately
endorses conservative politics or morality, only that it views aspects of
"left" history and activities in the U.S. with suspicion and disdain.

I don't think _Vineland_ serves as a particularly appealing introduction to
Pynchon's work at all. It's interesting because it's by Pynchon, but if it
was the first novel of his I looked at I don't know that I'd be inspired to
read another. I don't know that I'd have been inspired to even finish it, as
quite a few people I know didn't. It actually dented his reputation, and the
disappointment it engendered affected the reception of _M&D_ as well.

best