Editing Pynchon?

[David Morris]

Thank you Ray.  You said it for me.

When I first finished GR, I knew that I didn't "understand" it, but I
was still amazed by it.  I remember thinking "this is an extremely
complex tapestry."  And it immediately became one of my favorite
books.  I didn't even attempt to re-read it for a few years, and when
I did I took it slowly.  And then the third time (& 4th time - I read
it both simultaneously & ahead of the group) was with this list,
taking many notes.  To this day I've not seen its "structure,"
although I'm told it's there.  But I see its seamless coherence.
Something can have a "structure" and still be pointless, or not
compelling.

And the "this is Pynchon, after all" statement is less than an excuse
after his Vineland dog.

Sorry to be harsh, because I don't hate Pynchon.  I did try really
hard to like VL in a group read here a few years ago, but was
ultimately found it full of holes as well as shallow.   And then I
really enjoyed MD.  In fact, after IV, I'd love to re-read MD with
this list.  I have great hopes to like IV, because Kai loves it, and I
highly respect his tastes in literature (hi kai!).

See you at the IV group read!

David Morris

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Ray Easton<kraimie at kraimie.net> wrote:
>
> 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.