Bleeding Edge - A Rolling Assessment

Carvill John johncarvill at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 24 03:04:50 CDT 2013


Some interesting reactions. I was trying last night to put into words my main objection to BE, so far. It's difficult. I think the best way I can currently express it is by saying that there seems to be nothing much left once you strip out the zany names, overworked cute slang, and gratuitous references. All those things were there in IV, of course, but they seemed like ligaments connecting the bones of the narrative, whereas here there *are* no bones. The stylization of both the narrative and the dialog has been pushed a couple of notches too far, resulting in the prose equivalent of a tension headache. As I say, I hope my impression changes as I progress.
> I vastly prefer BE to IV, but am very aware that it's not due to any,
> er, inherent virtues or vices in either. That's why this thread is
> interesting, bringing out personal biases.
>
I've heard others say that, but I can't connect with it at all. I went back last night and read the opening pages of IV - what a breath of fresh air!
> I simply have no reference points for IV. Wasn't born at the time it's
> set, have no real knowledge of California in the 70s, no connection to
> the kinds of characters on display, or even the music, the ways of
> speaking and thinking...

Well I had reference points to IV via decades of consuming American culture, plus of course there was the Pynchon biog angle.


> Whereas the era and setting of BE is utterly ingrained in me, and I
> can laugh out loud at the very inclusion of Jamiroquai or the Rachel
> haircut. 
Maybe that's why the references don't work for me: they're too familiar because I lived through them, recently. But even so, they feel ill judged and over used.


 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130924/6747db92/attachment.html>


More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list