Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover

[Mark Kohut]

Literary criticism and literary theory often overlap
 
But, the best 'criticism' is NOT fiction, but a mind reading better/differently but insightfully than yours alone.
 

________________________________
 From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org 
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover
  

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> 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/20120907/0b03ae0a/attachment.html>