Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover

[Paul Mackin]

On 9/7/2012 12:13 PM, Madeleine Maudlin wrote:
> 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.

This pretty well has to be true.

A lot of criticism sounds like fiction.  It may say something is this 
when it could just as easily be that.   It's a kind of creative writing, 
an art not a science. In fact, sometimes a novelist in need of 
inspiration will use another fictional work, preferably famous, and make 
his own novel a kind of commentary or appreciation.

Fiction leads to more fiction.  (like poverty)

P
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Madeleine Maudlin 
> <madeleinemaudlin at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20120907/215f2020/attachment.html>