Fitzgerald's TN

[Markekohut]

the Schiller distinction is about surface style only..

Hemingway reestablished a plain style....Fitzgerald was more lyrical in a generally
Realistic tradition---Romantic revolutionary notions not relevant here. Yes, he found a few
Beautiful deep thematic symbols that make him not Hemingway. The eyeglasses, the egg, the green light, etc......but he is Not any kind of symbolist/loose allegorist. 

Pynchon goes with Eliot because he embeds symbols, literary allusions and IDEAS, part-coded , right into the prose. This does not keep Pynchon from being a Romantic,
And nothing implies he is whatever a Nostalgic Victorian Postmodernist is.....



Sent from my iPad

On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:41 PM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:

> If I accept these classifications (it doesn't help that the binary,
> though obvious enough in the division you make, is somehow rejected)
> and set Donne and Keats in different poetic classes, though members of
> the English tradition,  based on the pathetic fallacy, that is  Donne,
> sometimes called a metaphysical poet, and Eliot & Co., somehow fits on
> one side, while Wordsworth & Blake, and Frost &Co. on the other, I
> still cannot make the great leap into prose fiction, a jump that would
> lump Fitzgerald with Keats and Pynchon and Bath with Eliot. All of
> these authors had this much in common: they participated in
> self-conscious artistic revolutions that strove to break with old
> artistic models by inventing new forms. But what they were breaking
> with invloved a vision and often a re-vision of the history of forms
> that was formulated by their own priorities and concerns, often what
> they considered the crisis that, while somehow linked with events in
> reality, were often anxieties about the artists they had to, once
> conscious of their influence, self-consciously, break with.
> 
> And, this gets me thinking about one of the essential themes of
> Romantics, that is, the loss of youth and innocence, and how this
> distinguishes them from the Victorians, who are, self-consciously
> anxios, not only about the modern fragmentations and alienations and
> beaches dovered with rocks grinding nihilisitcally, but are Nostalgic.
> In your classification Pynchon is not a Romantic, but a Nostalgic
> Victorian postmodernist. That is, he goes with Eliot. But Pynchon is
> not nostalgic. He is a Romantic. And so, the pathetic fallacy need not
> make metaphysical complexity of trees. What falls in the woods when
> Man flies toward Grace matters not at all, but that Prairie sees the
> Trees for the Woods.