Does Pynchon Produce Only 'Masterworks'?

[Carvill, John]

<< In other words, everything Pynchon writes HAS to be a masterwork (even when it isn't).  I don't even think all of his LARGER tomes are masterworks or "genius."  There are no flat-out dogs, but only a minority qualify as "genius. >>

Hmm. Well now, I'm not sure whose 'other words' you're reacting to :-)

I was just offering my own opinion on what that reviewer may have meant by 'throwaway masterwork'. 

All these terms are relative, of course, and the usual imho's apply. However.... Me, I'd say you could maybe split P's work into 2 categories, genius-wise:

1. True 'masterworks' 

I'd start off with GR, obviously, and claim that as, inconrovertibly, a 'masterwork'. M&D too, surely? 


2. Works of (a) Genius

This category would be where I'd place 'V.'. It's undoubtedly the work *of a* genius, though whether it's a *work of genius* in itself is open to debate. It may have its flaws, but it unquestionably has flashes of genius. Same goes for Vineland. COL49 is a tricky book for me, it was (inevitably) the first Pynchon I ever read but I don't rank it as high on my 'favourite Pynchon' scale as most people do. But so what?! I'd put it somewhere between Categories (1) and (2) here, but many of us would likely argue it belongs in Category 1.

That leaves IV, which we (most of us preterite) don't know as yet, and ATD. To my mind, ATD is the hardest of Pynchon's books to 'rate', and it is patchy in places, very hard to get a handle on, but personally I would stick it firmly in Category (1) also.

So, by my count, out of 6 novels, that's 3 or 4 masterworks. Not bad for a wee lad from Oyster Bay!

Cheers
J