GR translation: demolition man

[Markekohut]

I think re Pynchon, Wood thinks it is more extravagant sound & fury that does NOT have more depth therefore universality. He is wrong. 

Have you ever read a book ( it was a manuscript unpublished in my case) in which the metaphors,the allusions the symbols, seem so random, so all over the place, that it seems it was written by a,few people---no real vision coherence? 

that basically is what Wood says about Pynchon, right Alice?

The wealth of it all overwhelms him seeing the general truths. Perhaps like you felt the first time you read GR....(I am talking about myself here. wood gets GR better than most first readers, as story, as whatever it is, but NOT it seems feeling/seeing the dots in the pointillistic Gestalt. o to speak.

And I'm very tired of Wood on Pynchon so leaving it all up to you, alice. 

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:05 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Woods want psych-diving realism. Pynchon's psych depth in GR is more universal, and as such follows Modernism's goals, as Woods should appreciate.
> 
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012, alice wellintown wrote:
>> Not exactly. What Wood wants is ambiguity that causes readers to care
>> for characters. We see a little boy suffer and then he is cruel. We
>> then hope he will mend his ways. The author, without intrusion, has
>> made the reader as he has created his characters, made them care about
>> the boy and his life. When an author like Pynchon spins the reader
>> round and round in the funhouse of ambiguity, the reader is made
>> indifferent, cares little, if at all, for the characters, the worlds
>> they live in, the situations, but is fascinated by the mirrors, the
>> reflections of multiplicity, the ambiguity itself, the spin and
>> mirrors.
>> 
>> But this puts P in good company. Who cares for Romeo or Juliet? We
>> know from the start that they will die, will take their own lives,
>> that their stars are crossed. It is Shakespearre we go to see and
>> hear, and the acting of his plays, not the dramatis personae. Are we
>> concerned about Hamlet? We are not. It is a play we study, not quite
>> as a closet drama, but as a messy gothic monster full of more words
>> and ambiguity than any other play by the bard of Avon. It is full of
>> long speeches about Being, and Acting, and Madness; it is cutting room
>> floor film spliced together and grafted to an old Norse tale. Who
>> cares about Hamlet? A 30 years old actor who won't play his part as
>> King, a man who uses ambiguity to show off, to trick, to kill is not a
>> man I care about. I am indifferent to Hamlet. Shakespeare's ambiguity,
>> the play, the play within the play, the play with words, the ambiguity
>> is the thing that makes Bill Shakespeare the King.
>> 
>> 
>> > Does Wood makes this demand?  Really?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And, anyway, if Wood assumes that language must be reduced to its
>> >> communication function, like the way one walks, or dresses to communicate,
>> >> and that a clear and unambiguous message is an expectation that readers
>> >> have when they open a work of fiction, he's an idiot.
>> >>
>> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121110/044ad272/attachment.html>