Pynchon's reply

John Bailey sundayjb at gmail.com
Mon May 18 22:07:05 CDT 2009


Doesn't the SL intro also state something to the effect that P
considers "plot" one of his weakest points? (I sort of agree)

In which case, the letter to Hollander is probably disingenuous, or at
least provoked a little self-reflection on P's part which ended up as
an admission that he's not that sharp a plotter.

I'm also fascinated by the way his non-book stuff often alternates
between strong, confident, pointed assertions and self-deprecating
confessions of laziness, erring, procedural laxity etc.

I think these caveats should be taken with a grain of salt. But I also
think P isn't a Total Mastermind in total control of every aspect of
his writing.

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Rob Jackson <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> ... the amusing sign-off contrasting "silence" with "English" ...
>
> "Heretofore, the naming of names has gone on either literally or as
> metaphor. But now, as the Duke gives his fatal command, a new mode of
> expression takes over. It can only be called a kind of ritual
> reluctance. Certain things, it is made clear, will not be spoken
> aloud; certain events will not be shown on stage." --Lot 49, pp. 49-50
>



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list