Kathyrn Hume on Late Coover

[Rich]

It's not the sentiment re: families that bugs me it's how Pynchon depicts them recently. It has the equivalence of saying I hate cancer. Great writers shouldn't be so obvious.

As far anarchic destruction, Reef enjoys it for sure. Hume mistakes Pynchon for his characters. Wouldn't be surprised considering pynchon's joy at blowing shit up based on some people who knew him in California but that's really irrelevant when discussing the work.

On Sep 6, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ms. Hume is one of the best pynchon readers, per the book I read. Yet, I might quibble with two things here. 
> 
> Having an ethic ala Wallace might still be how we should judge Coover and Pynchon. doesn't
> She set up a possibly false dichotomy between the courage of facing the void alone, say, and
> "negotiating society's obstacles" with others, with a family.
> 
> pynchon may be sentimental w his beliefs about family but that belief itself isn't necessarily so, is it?  isn't it how he presents it or believes it?   That Cyprian,Yashmeen, Ljublica family of three is not exactly Updikean or otherwise typical, yes?    (but whether he makes it believe able is still
> A open question even to this fanboy 
> 
> A...And...I still do not think trp himself believes in "anarchist destruction" in AtD or any book....despite the presence of the Traverses (and others). In some way it is like asking
> If he "believes" in the Chums adventures or is Doc. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 5:00 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Twelfth
>> "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.
>> ...
>> Despite rushes of joy at death bravely faced and fought by some of his
>> characters, Coover does not solidify these emotions into Meaning with
>> a capital M. They are new; but he does not seem to waver in his
>> apparently skeptical and materialist view of what lies beyond physical
>> existence and death. That tough-minded lack of compromise remains a
>> core value throughout his work. His refusal to provide meaning emerges
>> clearly if we compare Noir to Pynchon's latest novel, Inherent Vice,
>> also a loving parody of the hardboiled genre.
>> ...the difference in main characters makes us aware if the void still
>> present in Coover's work that has disappeared from Pynchon's."
>> 
>> --Review of Contemporary Fiction, Spring 2012.
>> 
>> There's some points to contend with in her essay but I would
>> wholeheartedly agree that whether you call it meaning, old age
>> sentimentalism, a family man with a kid, what have you but Pynchon's
>> lack of void if you want to use Ms. Hume's term definitely has
>> effected at least how I read late Pynchon. Whereas I wasn't bothered
>> by such in M&D the later two novels it has returned in spades and boy
>> does it bother me. If you want to call it an edge, call it an edge.
>> Coover, who I adore, hasnt really lost it, that edge.
>> 
>> FWIW, another writer, Martin Amis, I think has succumbed to the same
>> ridiculous sentimentality, at least in his last novel, Lionel Asbo
>> which was simply dreadful and dripping with that family first time
>> father overly sentimental prose that would make anyone ill after a
>> simple serving.
>> 
>> anyway, that's how I see it
>> 
>> rich