Pynchon and Roth

[Mark Kohut]

that Roth doesn't "reach for the stars", just explores the moral (dis) order 
within (America)---Kant allusion---
is maybe why he hasn't won the Big One?   THEY like that over there.............




________________________________
From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
To: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>; pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 12:12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pynchon and Roth

On 5/12/2011 10:54 AM, Mark Kohut wrote: 
I just thought of something.  What would it be like if an author with Roth's 
writing style were to narrate the story of Slothrup, Blicero, Katje, et al.   
Unimaginable.
>
>there is Sabbath's Theater....
>
Sabbath and Blicero are alike in that neither makes compromises in their search 
for authenticity.

Of course, Sabbath's unbending trajectory to destruction leaves no space for 
reading Rilke.  


Not that Sabbath couldn't have been made to reach for the stars.

But would reaching for the stars be a good fit for Roth?

I don't know.

p


>P 
>
>
>
>>AsB4,
>>٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>>Henry Mu
>>http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:34 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>
>>Two good descriptions of PR.  His sentneces are clean and tight. He
>>>knows how to write. His stories don't lock me in. Mostly Jewish Jersey
>>>Fair.  Pynchon's a word master. Roth is one of the best best sellers
>>>on the market. We might Compare Apples and Orange Acid.
>>>
>>>Roth makes good use of a sentence. Utilitarian is the wrong word for
>>>his language skill. He drives. Pynchon flies.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:54 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Utilitarian?  It may not be self-consciously poetic but it's masterful.  It
>>>> has tremendous rhythm and drive and propulsive energy.  It never sags, not
>>>> for a sentence.  He locks me in quicker than any writer I can name.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>>>> To: Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>; pynchon-l
>>>> <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Sent: Wed, May 11, 2011 5:08 am
>>>> Subject: Re: Pynchon and Roth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, with Roth the language is simple and straightforward.  You never have
>>>> to consciously pause and ask yourself why did he chose that particular word
>>>> or image.   The  language is utilitarian, a means to an end. It's what the
>>>> words relate that is important. With Pynchon language is all.  The genius 
is
>>>> not is what he says, which often can't quite be parsed,  but how he says 
it.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2011 6:45 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08.05.2011 16:49, Paul Mackin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like Philip Roth.  He's funny, which is pleasurable, and there is 
constant
>>>> struggle with social forces, his family, his women, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The good thing about Philip Roth for the non-native speaker/reader is, that
>>>> the books are written in an easy way. Sure, there is 'frames in frames' and
>>>> other pomo sophistication. But on the level of vocabulary and
>>>> sentence-construction you always catch it right away. That's different with
>>>> Pynchon's books, which also have a wider spectrum of leitmotifs. Philip 
Roth
>>>> is always primarily writing about Philip Roth. Actually I haven't read him
>>>> lately, but I remember "The Counterlife" and "Operation Shylock" very well.
>>>> Both part of my personal canon. Perhaps this is because these books leave
>>>> the relatively small social life-world of the upper intellectual middle
>>>> class of New Jersey. There's more of the not so "funny" world in it, but
>>>> it's still that "pleasurable" straightforward style. And Roth is writing
>>>> excellent dialogue. Better than Pynchon, no doubt. But Pynchon, who has no
>>>> talent for clarity, is imo the far more poetic prose-writer. Pynchon can
>>>> evoke goose-flesh and hyperventilation. He's channeling the Orphic stream
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> KFL
>>>>
>>>> PS: Of course this doesn't mean that Tom can't be funny -- "'And considered
>>>> subjectively,' added Dr. V. Ganesh Rao of the Calcutta University, 'as an
>>>> act of becoming longer or shorter, while at the same time turning, among
>>>> axis whose unit vector is not familiar and comforting 'one' but the
>>>> altogether disquieting square root minus one. If you were a vector,
>>>> mademoiselle, you would begin in the 'real' world, change your length, 
enter
>>>> an 'imaginary' reference system, rotate up to three different ways, and
>>>> return to 'reality' a new person. Or vector.'/'Fascinating. But ... human
>>>> beings aren't vectors. Are they?'/'Arguable, young lady. As a matter of
>>>> fact, in India, the Quaternions are now the basis of a modern school of
>>>> Yoga, a discipline which has always relied on such operations as stretching
>>>> and turning. Here in the traditional 'Triangle Asana', for example' --- he
>>>> stood and demonstrated --- 'the geometry is fairly straightforward. But 
soon
>>>> one moves on to more advanced forms, into the complex spaces of the
>>>> Quaternions ...' He shifted a few dishes, climbed on the table, announced
>>>> 'The Quadrantal Versor Asana,' and commenced a routine which quickly became
>>>> more contortionistic and now and then you'd say contrary-to-fact, drawing
>>>> the attention of other diners and eventually the maître d', who came 
running
>>>> over waving a vehement finger and was two steps away from the table when 
Dr.
>>>> Rao abruptly vanished" (Against the Day, p. 539). Oh Logik des
>>>> Verschwindens!
>>>


>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure sure I wouldn't quite enjoy a books full of Blicero.  He was a
>>> pretty marvelous creation.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110512/56d76820/attachment.html>