BE/White Noise

[Paul Mackin]

'Surface' vs. 'Deep'  Surface is what the author gives us of his or
her own, preferably something felicitous and even unique, in other
words style. It's what, as David reminds us, Gravity's Rainbow had and
still has in spades. Deep (or meaning) is more impersonal, less
intimately connected to the particular author. If Deep is to have any
value, it must give the likely reader of the novel something he or she
may have overlooked or otherwise is not cognizant of.  There is no
reason I can see why it should be 'hidden' within the novel. A novel
is not some kind of secret code (not is the U.S.).

Of course 'Surface' and 'Deep' can't really be pulled apart.    For
example, paranoia, some will say, is both 'Surface'--part of his
style--and 'Deep' (where the meaning lies). Is this seriously the
message of GR? Not in my mind. But there are other views.

P

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:05 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Non engagement of surface was never a problem with GR.
>
>
> On Thursday, October 10, 2013, Robin Landseadel wrote:
>>
>> The realization that there's so much beneath the "Surface" of this Novel,
>> knowing that this one requires re-reading more than the others, particularly
>> after starting up my reading for a second time. Because the tone is so glib
>> and the end scenes of the novel so "normalized" it's easy to race by details
>> here—I have so many "If only she'd looked" moments while reading this.
>>
>> And you must know by now that CoL49 is my idee fixe.
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Rich wrote:
>>
>>> Much appreciated Robin but why does your view of things sound so much
>>> better than the experience of actually reading the book?
>>>
>>> rich
>>
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l