Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover

[Markekohut]

C'mon, that's simply wrong. Criticism starts with two people sharing perceptions of a story.
Sometimes it gets written down and some is more insightful than others.



Sent from my iPad

On Sep 7, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Madeleine Maudlin <madeleinemaudlin at gmail.com> 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.
> 
> 
> 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/f13a3a89/attachment.html>