sex scene commentary / book commentary in general (ATD)

[gp]

And as a final aside, in regards to what I said earlier, I think that
being able to admit that you can't completely understand GR (or AtD)
at any given moment, all of it, all at once, is a part of
understanding it.

On 1/14/07, gp <wescac at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would wager that the Dig reporter has a shot at being the guy who's
> never read GR.  Maybe Vineland or COL49.
>
> I think I'd have the same impression of AtD though...  I don't know
> how I'm doing it, because I definitely view Vineland, M&D (though I've
> not given it an honest enough shot yet), and COL49 in the light of GR.
>  But V. and AtD fall outside of that spectrum for me somehow...  my
> mind is all on those novels and nothing else.  As far as I'm concerned
> they stand alone regardless of how they call upon one another.
>
> But going beyond that...  I would say that GR falls to the same
> criticism as AtD in my mind.  This is not mass market material (though
> it's nice to buy and have on the shelf to look all smart for having a
> bigfat book on your shelf).  I still get lost by parts of GR, I'll
> admit it, but I've learned so much from the book (and often the parts
> I get lost at are not the same I got lost at before, which I
> understand upon later readings) that I know that where I get lost
> there are things worth investigating as opposed to sloppy writing.
> Most readers, and most reviewers, aren't going to see past this, and
> have to either go on gut opinion or what they think will turn a quick
> buck.  If you get what I'm saying.  And you (I) really can't blame
> them - how many books have you read that built themselves up to be
> such wonderful, complex stories, upon further reading appear as mere
> shams of what they pretend to be?  This is not, by any means, dime a
> dozen material, and it's easy to let that "all that glitters is not
> gold" mentality get the best of you, to let those childlike moments of
> bewildered amazement pass away to become bitter distrust, until it
> becomes such that ALL that glitters is not gold, and fortunes are lost
> upon you.
>
> In any case, while I am unabashedly a fanboy of Pynchon, you would
> never hear me waxing poetic about M&D (unless it reveals more to me
> upon further reading than it has so far) or Vineland, or even COL49
> (which is an interesting story, and a good one, but one that to me
> remains only that, especially if you refuse to acknowledge the other
> writing of the author, if it was all you had to go on - I do use the
> second person generously as I'm sure there are more than a few that
> could beat me down in a verbal debate on the subject).
>
> I think it will be interesting to see, in years to come, where AtD
> lies upon the consensus line of academics in regards to Pynchon's
> writing.  I don't think it could ever supplant GR for me (I know it
> couldn't) on a personal level, but I would not be closed-eared in
> regards to discussion on the topic.  I think that it is possible for
> it to, on a personal level, become equal to GR.  If only because it
> resonates to a less decade-endowed individaul such as myself, more
> than any imagery of the world of the 60s, 70s, or WWII-era America
> could ever resonate, if only because I never experienced it, if only
> because I was not there.
>
> (spoiler)
>
> And remember.  Follow the bouncing ball.  A heavenwide blast of light.
>
> It went on for a month.  Those who had taken it for a cosmic sign
> cringed beneath the sky each nightfall, imagining ever more
> extravagant disasters.  Others, for whom orange did not seem an
> appropriately apocalyptic shade, sat outdoors on public benches,
> reading calmly, growing used to the curious pallor.  As nights went on
> and nothing happened and the phenomenon slowly faded to the accustomed
> deeper violets again, most had difficulty remembering the ealier rise
> of heart, the sense of overture and possibility, and went back once
> again to seeking only orgasm, hallucination, stupor, sleep, to fetch
> them through the night and prepare them against the day.
>
> I do not know Gravity's Rainbow, I do not.  I don't know beyond basic
> knowing, I don't know in the sense of having lived it, the world
> during which GR was written, and that alone will always be a wall,
> regardless of how greatly I regard the book.  But I know that.  And
> perhaps because it is all that I know, perhaps because it is the
> greatest thing I know, it can resonate that much more powerfully to me
> and mine.  Perhaps Pynchon has become the man in two places, able to
> live both moments at once, though having never lived the previous life
> I can not judge by myself.  And perhaps that's the thing after all,
> since it is likely rare to find a member of this list that lived
> through the firebombing of London regardless of being alive through
> the era of Pynchon's writing.
>
> "There are places we fear, places we dream, places whose exiles we
> became and never learned it until, sometimes, too late."
>
>
>
> On 1/14/07, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: gp <wescac at gmail.com>
> >
> > >I don't think reviewers are wrong to say certain things against the
> > >book since, as I said in reply to another topic, reviews are for the
> > >mass market, and this is not something a mass market audience could
> > >handle (this is just brass tacks, folks) and that middle - man, if you
> > >were reading this book on a deadline - for work, not pleasure - could
> > >you really have written a glowing review if this were your only
> > >knowledge of Pynchon?
> >
> > I know there are two schools of thought on this, but I think it's impossible for anyone who's read GR et al. to evaluate ATD in and of itself, without taking all of Pynchon's work into account.  There are (non-reviewer) people who are being introduced to Pynchon via ATD, and I think their perspective is an interesting one, but I can't recall reading any reviews by people who fall into this category.  If anyone knows of one, I'd like to read it.
> >
> > Laura
> >
>