Noir Classics

[David Morris]

The logic here being that if it fits the "strictures" of picaresque, all
criticism is petty and personal?  Picaresque means beyond critcism?

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Robin Landseadel <
robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:

George Plimpton pointed out the good/bad ages ago in his NYT review of "V.":

       For the author, the form of the picaresque is convenient: he can
       string together the short stories he has at hand (publishers are
       reluctant to publish short-story collections, which would suggest
       the genre is perhaps a type of compensation). Moreover -- the
       well-made, the realistic not being his concern -- the author can
       afford to take chances, to be excessive, even prolix, knowing
       that in a work of great length stretches of doubtful value can be
       excused. The author can tell his favorite jokes, throw in a song,
       indulge in a fantasy or so, include his own verse, display an
       intimate knowledge of such disparate subjects as physics,
       astronomy, art, jazz, how a nose-job is done, the wildlife in the
       New York sewage system. These indeed are some of the topics
       which constitute a recent and remarkable example of the genre:
       a brilliant and turbulent first novel published this month by a
       young Cornell graduate, Thomas Pynchon. He calls his book
       "V."

http://www.thomaspynchon.com/v/reviews.html

All of Pynchon's books somehow find a way to pull in a trainload of
digressions, misdirections and strung together short stories. Some folks get
driven batty by the procedure, others just go along for the ride. Guess it
all depends on whether your a passenger or a driver.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20090709/fee5720d/attachment-0001.html>