BE as P's attempt at Greek New Comedy

[Fiona Shnapple]

Another question: did Pynchon use the term late-capitalism in IV or in
prior novels? Been thinking about what Robin said about the Left Content in
this novel. I happened to be quite fond of a lady who may win the Nobel for
prosecuting a certain individual who is guilty of genocide with products
made in the USA.  How's that for a female heroine fucking a fascist?

 There is so much in the narrative drift of this book that point to such
people, both the sinister and evil bastards who murder and waste life, and
those who fight them, protect the oppressed, resist the greeeed, the
 guzzling SUVs.


So GTA, like so many Video Games is the topic of study in classes where
Jameson is read.

I don't think this is Game Over. That's not how I read it.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> You know what these things mean FS.
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Fiona Shnapple <fionashnapple at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > John, I'd like to respond, but you lost me, so, if you don't mind, some
> > basic questions:
> >
> > What is the old Greek comedy? What is the new Greek comedy?
> > What is a Coover take?
> > What is close third person?  I looked this last one up and was not
> convinced
> > that the definition provided is what you have in mind.
> >
> >
> > On Monday, October 7, 2013, John Bailey wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm increasingly wondering if the new novel isn't Pynchon's conscious
> >> attempt to write a New Comedy, in contrast to the Old Comedy that most
> >> of his work can be aligned with. Or, if we're going to get more
> >> detailed, with the Menippean Satire that some have convincingly argued
> >> is his forte. But I'm sticking with the Old/New divide of the Greeks
> >> for the moment.
> >>
> >> It would perhaps explain why this one jars so much for so many. It's
> >> sitcom, not systems analysis, and when it gives us types (Jewish
> >> American, African American, Italian American) it doesn't do so in the
> >> obviously ironic way his earlier works did. It doesn't give us the
> >> linguistic miracles that offer a way out of the existential morass in
> >> the manner we're used to P providing. It tries to offer characters
> >> we're supposed to care for, which is antithetical to Old Comedy, even
> >> if that mode is a more compassionate one on a structural level. BE
> >> leaves us with mere people, individuals, not even a hint of the
> >> preterite, which is interesting and a problem.
> >>
> >> A Coover take on 2001-02 would look more like what we could have
> >> expected from Bleeding Edge.
> >>
> >> Why, in both IV and BE, has Pynchon returned to close third person
> >> narration (with at least one exception in BE that I've noticed?) It's
> >> not What He Does. Not even in Vineland. He toyed with it in COL49 but
> >> then declared it a minor work. Why go back there?
> >> -
> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131007/15a63264/attachment.html>