Editing Pynchon?

[Ray Easton]

Carvill, John wrote:
> I can't speak for Otto, but what I was saying was that ATD is relatively
> recent, and huge, and it would not be surprising, to say the least, if
> it subsequently proved that there are some structural elements which at
> this point we do not fully understand. This is Pynchon, after all. 
>   

I understand this point.  When we conclude that some work does not 
cohere, it is always possible that this is because we have failed to 
grasp the underlying structure -- that the fault lies with us, rather 
than with the work.   But the "this is Pychon, after all" seems just an 
excuse.  When I finished GR, I certainly did not think I understood all 
its structural elements; on the contrary, I was (and to a very large 
degree still am) baffled and mystified by what makes it a coherent 
whole.  But I experienced it as just such an organized whole, even 
though I did not understand how or why it was such.  I had a similar 
experience with M&D.  But I had no such experience with ATD. 

The fault may well be with me, and not with the work.  But then again, 
the fault may lie with the work. 

 
> If someone were to 'explain' this structure, as you rather snidely
> suggest, then that would not necessarily mean that all parts of the book
> are essential: it could be that there are whole sections whose inclusion
> or omission would have no impact on that ,structure. 
>   

Logically, this is true.  But those who are waiting for it to be 
"sufficiently" explained are unlikely to draw such a conclusion.  They 
will rather draw the conclusion that the apparently inessential elements 
have yet to be "sufficiently" explained.  After all, it is Pynchon.


Ray