Does Pynchon Produce Only 'Masterworks'?

[David Morris]

V. is a difficult book to follow, but less so than GR, and for similar
reasons.  They both revolve around an abstract theme/object/person.  But the
episodes in neither are "tenuously connected" - they are connected
by chronologies that are often hidden and require the reader to make the
connections.  And they are connected by abstract themes and intentional
conundrums. That's why it's hard to understand what message or meaning the
author intends.  I am much more interested personally to what I see as their
contemplations on universal issues than Pynchon's novels that are much more
specifically political and less abstract - my personal taste.  That's also
why Beckett's trilogy is one of my favorite literary works (Becket also
happens to be extremely funny, like Pynchon).

But I don't think VL is anywhere as deeply developed than any of the books
that came before it.  I'm guessing that's the same reason that the reviewer
calls IV "throwaway," meaning "lightweight," something I don't look forward
to in reading Pynchon

David Morris

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Carvill, John <john.carvill at sap.com> wrote:

>
> People can go ahead and get bored!
>
> I take your point, but I think I could easily conunter your argument by
> saying, look, V. is (structure-wise) just a bunch of tenuously connected
> episodes, jumping randomly around from one time period and location to
> another, and you could quite easily shuffle many of the chapters around with
> no real positive or negative effect on the coherence of the book as a whole.
>
> If I were escaping the proverbial burning building, and having harvested a
> mumber of other Pynchon books, had to quickly grap either V. or Vineland
> just before I dived clear of the flames, it would be a tough call. For what
> it's worth, I found V. an incredibly tough read first time round, certainly
> it was the hardest to read of all P's books, for me. A second reading was
> easier, but by then I'd read ll Pynchon's other books.
>
> <<People are going to get bore with this conversation, but here goes
> anyway.
>
> V's structure kept changing centers, in locations, times and main
> characters, constantly.  The most constantly changing character being the
> many incarnations of V. and her myriad of different stories and locations.
> And one's not too sure that they are one being until the end (and even then
> they can hardly be literally so).  But even with all these characters and
> stories, nothing ever seems extraneous.
>
> VL by contrast, is mostly a chronological story centered around one family
> with numerous flashbacks and a few secondary characters and their stories
> and histories.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20090707/16d296e7/attachment-0001.html>