James goes to the dogs

[Carvill, John]

Well, isn't 'Hysterical realism' sort of an unavoidably derogatory term?
Hysterical?

All that lit crit theory stuff is strictly for lit crits. We dig Pynchon
because of the beauty and poetry and rhythm of his prose, his humour and
heart, his fuelling our sense of wonder and, as someone once said of
someone completely different, his ability to sharpen our sense of being
alive. We feel simpatico with a lot of his attitudes, political and
social sensibilities, keep cool but care etc. We like all the
rersonances and references and outright weirdness, the way he's always
pulling all these unexpected rabbits out of his hat.... We like some of
that postmodern stuff, fer sure, but it ain't the whole deal, I'd
venture to suggest, for too many of us. And some of us could care less
for pomo this or deconstructivist that or realist the other. We read
Pynchon because we enjoy him. He has a special, unique quality that you
just don't get from yer Roths, Bellows, and sure as shit not from your
Updikes, etc. The discrepency between the sum of a writer's parts, and
his whole, is a lot bigger in Pynchon's case than any other. Taking him
apart to decide that he doesn't work is a self-defeating impulse.

Bah!