Well I just reread Vineland and the news is still bad...

[Bryan Snyder]

I think what he meant is that you could parse the novels into several areas,
a la lit crit, and start competing area to area... i.e. the diction between
the two, the character depth, the narration, the plot etc.

Or maybe I'm missing his point.

But certainly I do not think he meant at all to imply that simply because of
the diction of one being superior then the whole book follows as being
superior.

He's just taking the overall, general argument/discussion and well...
(cliché alert!) getting down to brass tax.

B

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of David Morris
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:49 PM
To: Ya Sam
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Well I just reread Vineland and the news is still bad...

These values are not ones I would use to judge the "superiority" of a novel.

On 6/15/07, Ya Sam <takoitov at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In terms of the difficulty of the diction, it is definitely 'superior', at
least to me. GR is tough, of course, what with ctenophile, scumble, berm,
flume, cullet, callipygean etc.
>
> But M&D is really vicious in this respect: butter-bag, remontoire, chaunt,
pass-bank, cilial, tagareen man, huddock, keel-bully, staitheman, mombly,
etesian, nidor, droster, loblolly, mathesis, buzz-man, glaur, to name but a
few.
>