The flattened American landscape of minor writers

[Guy Ian Scott Pursey]

Perhaps (and this is only a suggestion) McEwan finds Pynchon too
difficult. Perhaps he is not considered as one of the peaks of American
letters because, for writers like McEwan, he is too 'cult' and
'obscure'. If Mason & Dixon was too difficult for Jonathan Franzen then
what are we to expect of a writer like McEwan?

Not trying to belittle Pynchon's wide readership but it might be that
McEwan thinks Pynchon appeals to a different (dare I say smaller?)
readership than, say, Roth. Also Pynchon has produced far fewer books.

This reminds me of something I'm sure I read Alan Moore (author of the
Watchmen, V for Vendetta, etc) saying in an interview. He was bemoaning
the fact that someone like Thomas Pynchon would always be recognised
and remembered as a great writer when someone like Michael Moorcock
would be overlooked by academia/literary historians for not being
'literary' enough.

Sorry for paraphrasing. But my (small and perhaps irrelevant) point is
that the same tendency to reduce areas of writing to one or a few peaks
occurs at different levels and across all genres.

Lastly, I could easily recommend a few Philip Roth books to friends and
family, to people I know who may only read one or two books a year. This
I can generally do without reservation. Whereas I would recommend
Pynchon (often do in fact) but not first without warning that they might
find the book more challenging than they're used to.

My two cents (worth increasingly less in these difficult times),
Guy


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
Behalf Of Carvill John
Sent: 26 February 2009 10:38
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: The flattened American landscape of minor writers


Robin wrote:
 
<< Speaking only for myself [while suspecting that this also applies to
others] us Pynchonites tend to get a tad insular and obsessive-a bit too
focused on one author to the exclusion of others. It all sounds a lot
like:>>
 
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
 
I'm not focusing on Pynchon to the exclusion of anyone. Several of
Roth's books have given me great pleasure, and left me in awe of his
talent. Same goes for Bellow. I haven't enjoyed Updike as much, though I
devoured the Rabbit books and have re-read a couple of them.
 
But I can't let McEwan get away with this:
 
"American letters, deprived in recent years of its giants, Bellow and
Mailer, is a levelled plain, with one solitary peak guarded by Roth."
 
Sorry, but to claim that 'American letters', in the wake of Updike's
passing, is now dominated by Roth and Roth only at the 'giant' level, is
bullshit.
 
 
 
 
 

 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live(tm) Hotmail(r)...more than just e-mail. 
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_
howitworks_022009