John Hawkes' significance

[Steven]

	This touches a nerve with me.  I started reading both Barth and  
Pynchon in the early 70s and loved them both, Barth perhaps more at  
the time because there was more to read.  Hawkes I didn't discover  
until later in that decade when his Second Skin was assigned reading  
in some class or other.  For what it's worth, I think his Adventures  
in the Alaskan Skin Trade is his most rewarding work.  But his style  
was always more lapidary than the rest of the American mods and, in  
the mood, I loved nothing more.  But who disappointed most?  Def.  
Barth.  How I loathe that man and his output over the last twenty  
years.  Whoever his Shelley is ruined him, because every book with a  
ded. to her is wretched.  I except his autobiography which I  
enjoyed.  Pynchon is consistent in comparison with the other two  
imo.  And his goofiness appeals to me, regardless of what I said  
previously about his other dark mode.

	Steve--never read Barthelme or Gass.  Consumed vast quantities of  
Vonn. in high school -- O.D.ed.  I've never read Slow Learner either  
(!) but tacked it on to my advance purch. of AtD on Amazon.

	
On Aug 18, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Ya Sam wrote:

> When you look at literary criticism of the 1960s and 1970s the name  
> of John Hawkes is always used on a par with those of Pynchon,  
> Barth, Gass, Barthelme, Vonnegut. From the perspective of the 1990s  
> and the beginning of the 21st century the value of this writer has  
> considerably decreased as you can hardly come across his name these  
> days. So, was he an overrated writer after all? I've read only  
> 'Cannibal" and 'Lime Twig', and although I found him interesting I,  
> for one, would not put him on the same level as Pynchon and Barth.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20060818/15aa96b4/attachment.html>