a look at the James Wood AtD review - part 2 (couple spoilers)

[Daniel Harper]

I have not quite finished GR (just finished "In the Zone" some thirty
minutes ago, which gives me something like 150 pages left) and I finished
ATD nearly six months ago, so take the following with a grain of salt.

GR is a much more narratively concise novel than ATD, given that despite its
long digressions and Pynchonian complexity, the storyline basically just
follows Slothrop and "those who interact with Slothrop" around. No matter
how abstruse the information or storyline in GR, one is pretty much always
assured that Slothrop will be reappearing within the next section or two,
and the general thematic threads of the novel are much closer to the surface
than in ATD.

ATD simply has no central character, and its themes are considerably deeper
than those in GR. While it can be argued that Pynchon has simply structured
his book badly, or that the book simply wasn't really worth writing, I think
the deeper issue is that this book is simply very different from any other
that Pynchon has written, and in a very real sense very different from
anything else that's ever been written. If anything, Pynchon is calling back
to those huge intergenerational sagas of the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, but with his own special twist. Since these novels are now so
distant from us in time and in theme, it may seem that this novel lacks the
propulsive force of Pynchon's earlier works, but I think deeper
understanding is reached by simply assuming that Pynchon has written exactly
the novel he intended to write, and going from there. I think the overall
quality and depth of Pynchon's other works allow us to be slightly generous
for now, and perhaps over time and with greater literary understanding of
the novel, a clearer picture will emerge of exactly what Pynchon is doing
here.

There's much more I could say, of course, but for now I'm going to go tackle
at least some of "The Counterforce" before I get off for the day.

--Daniel

On 7/9/07, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ATD seems just plain tired compared to GR.  GR is  much more
> experimental (and thus that much less accessible).  And much more
> intensely felt, because, I think TRP was passionately exploring the
> limits of the new form of fiction he was then pioneering. When Woods
> complains about the sameness of descriptions I understand what he
> means.  I'm sorry to say that ATD feels almost Pynchon-formulaic at
> times.
>
> I don't agree with Wood's criticism of GR in his Richardson/Fielding
> framework because I seriously do feel for the feelings of many of GR's
> characters, and I never felt they were immune from consequences.  The
> tragic at least equals the comic in GR.  And when Pynchon employs his
> rich prose it doesn't seem calculated merely to propel the reader past
> the next few pages, as it does seem to me in ATD.
>
> I think ATD is good, on the whole, but I think GR is a masterpiece.
>
> David Morris
>
> On 7/9/07, mikebailey at speakeasy.net <mikebailey at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> > laura kelber wrote
> >
> > > Thanks for your thoughtful dissection of the Woods review (which I
> haven't actually read yet). I think what you say in point "n" is the real
> gist of his review: nothing in the book particularly grabbed him. I think we
> all have our favorite sections in TRP's books. For me, they came fast and
> furious in GR (and V, COL49 and M&D) but were much sparser in VL and ATD. So
> I can sympathize with reviewers who are less than enthralled with ATD.
> >
> > Is it because of the opposite reason - not enough dangerous radicalism?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070709/114ce428/attachment-0001.html>