Literary discussion?

[Paul Mackin]

I would think a sincere satirist was one who cared about the effect his
work has on readers.  If he or she wants to change readers' consciousness
they're sincere.  Not sure about which category H fits into. Some call him
a nihilist, not caring about nothin'.  But he's a fine writer.

Kindle readers like me don't get to see the dust jacket.



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com> wrote:

> Submission has been on my wish list for some time - it just got boosted to
> very soon after the new year.   Thanks.
>
> Bek
>
> > On Dec 30, 2015, at 5:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > the jacket for SUBMISSION quotes Adam Gopnick ( New Yorker) calling
> Houellebecq " not only a satire but a sincere ( in italics) satirist,
> genuinely saddened by the absurdities of history And  madnesses of mankind"
> >
> > My question: how does a sincere satirist differ from an insincere one?
> Only answer I can think of is that it is Effective, real, artistic
> satire--contrasted with failed satire, not right, not deep, not original.
> .....
> > Pynchon's satire is sincere, right? swift's, of course, right?  I
> thought it was a virtual truism that the best satire springs from idealism
> ( sincere) showing up the real world's failings.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad-
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151231/7d862e2d/attachment.html>