Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover

[Madeleine Maudlin]

I just glanced back and thought about what I said there; I suppose literary
*theory* can be written in a serious, non-fictional sense, because it's not
specific to any given work.  But any specific discussion about a specific
fictional text would necessarily cave into fiction itself.  There can not
be *examples* of literary theory, in practice.

So that, when one purports to link, in a realistic fashion, an abstract
thought about the nature of literature, to some specific fictional text,
that purporting--that theory--becomes *itself* a work of fiction.

In which case, by definition, there's no real-truth to it (the theory), so
why take consider it in any non-humorous, serious way.  To do so would, in
a sense, itself be a pure fiction.


On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Madeleine Maudlin <
madeleinemaudlin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Literary criticism/theory seems it would be impossible, if not maddening
> above all things.  First, you're dealing with what the author, presumably,
> or at least it's supposed, admits and even claims with some pride and
> however boisterous the publishing gods may allow him to be, to be fiction.
>  By which, without getting too anarchic about things, we all mean not-real.
>  All set about by the imagination.  But then you're immediately stuck
> getting at what the author "really" meant by the words he used in his
> fiction, at which point you've descended, or ascended, depending on your
> theory, into philosophical interpretations of a fictionalist's imagination,
> which must necessarily, along the way, be absurd.  And you end up with
> people, like me for example, who claim that Pynchon in essence, from
> beginning to end, is a humorist, and that to seek any meaning, let alone
> "deep" meaning, in *Pynchon*, is wrongheaded and hopeless.  Although the
> truism allows that any meaning may be applied to his texts.  And so they
> should be, for that's in the end the positive meaning of fiction.  Then
> again if somebody told me they don't find Pynchon humorous I'd probably
> believe they are "missing his meaning".
>
> Beyond the humor, Pynchon as writer is a prankster of the highest
> order--he means* *to be enjoyed and wowed at and boggled by much more
> than contemplated or pondered or politicized, or theorized.
>
> I started this note with the intent of saying something about his personal
> life, but now I seem to have rambled away from it--
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2012 6:48 AM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>
>>> >From the excerpt, it seems that the author implies that P celebrates
>>> anarchist destruction in earlier works. If this is the case, the
>>> author is wrong. There is no celebration of anarchist destruction in
>>> the Short Stories or in V. or in GR or M&D or VL. So how is anachy,
>>> and anarchist destruction, such as the failed attempts of the sick
>>> crews, from Grover and the boys on, treated in Pynchon's works before
>>> agtd AND iv?
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Anarchist destruction" seems to be an unfortunate metaphor, possibly
>> applicable to GR wherein the generally accepted laws of propriety for many
>> readers and l'homme moyen sensuel are disregarded with reckless abandon.
>>
>> The metaphor is unfortunate because a lot of folks regard anarchism,
>> regardless of its impracticality and unlikelihood, as a worthy goal.
>>
>> But what IS total hooey is the idea that a writer's taking on lawful
>> wedlock and child raising constitutes any kind of major factor in how he or
>> she writes.  A wife is no substitute for a Muse, and children are, well.
>> children.  Also, just for example, how do we know the Pyncher doesn't find
>> his present domestic situation stifling and boring.  I don't think this is
>> the case, but we certainly don't know.
>>
>> I'll go out on a limb because I'm not any kind of authority on the
>> Pynchon Industry.  I just often have thought that group, of which Hume is
>> in the leadership, sometimes feels duty bound to make Pynchon more
>> "respectable" and in compliance with political correctness than he really
>> (hopefully) is.
>>
>> So . .  . . when I read a passage in AtD that seems a little too gooey
>> and sentimental I can still lie back and enjoy it for the sheer great
>> writing, knowing full well in my heart of hearts that it remains still and
>> forever a vital if more subtle  part of that great conspiracy theory that
>> modern existence is.
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  "As high postmodernism wanes, some of its leading figures have backed
>>>> away from the void and have tried to offer partial answers to life's
>>>> questions and some meaningful values. David Foster Wallace very
>>>> tentatively seeks an ethic; Pynchon has shifted from complete distrust
>>>> of every human organization (Gravity's Rainbow) to a strong and
>>>> arguably sentimental belief in families. Pynchon once felt even the
>>>> Red Cross could not escape the inherent evil of being an organization,
>>>> but his latest two novels have shown more acceptance of social
>>>> realities, and Inherent Vice celebrates negotiating society's
>>>> obstacles rather than anarchist destruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120907/6637a9de/attachment.html>