P: "Self-criticism..shouldn't work.. but it can"--and be as strange as Love,mebbe

[Monte Davis]

I don't think any of the articles, reviews, book introductions (including
SL), blurbs, album copy, or occasionally surfacing letters bear the level
of scrutiny as "precisely crafted piece[s] of writing" that his fiction
does. Why should they?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Steven Koteff <steviekoteff at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've been thinking a lot about the Slow Learner intro. The book's release
> had any number of personal/professional justifications, no doubt (which
> Kachka speculates on in that Vulture thing). But TRP is/was not ignorant of
> the degree to which he is ever pursued, not merely by predatory reporters
> and so forth, but by people who view him as a source of honesty and wisdom
> in these and all dark times. In the SL intro I think we see him coming to
> terms with the fact that people are going to take everything he says and
> publishes very seriously for at least probably the rest of his life.
>
> In light of that, I have been wondering to what extent that intro is a
> precisely crafted piece of writing on his part. We know from the novels the
> extent to which he can sustain a prose that is densely layered and encoded,
> or at least where every word is multiply resonant and purposeful. The
> intro, in contrast, seems straightforward and almost casual. But then it's
> so aberrant in his career, and kind of warmly acknowledges his own
> influence so much, that you'd have to think it is written with full
> understanding of the degree to which some people would try to use it
> as...evidence/justification/fatwa of...something.
>
> The intro is an interesting read if you go through it trying to ask
> yourself to whom it is addressed. He seems to actually care a great deal
> about what apprentice artists can learn from it. But also there is no doubt
> it is for the fans.
>
> But how earnest and how careful/purposeful is he about, say, the books he
> mentions? Can you imagine him writing the intro and thinking, okay, I will
> grant them (you guys, us) an acknowledgement of x number of sources? Can
> you imagine him deciding which sources to acknowledge and which not to? (On
> the Road gets two plugs, and how many others get none? Although maybe by
> this point, in this form, he isn't concerned with exhaustion or perfection.)
>
> You say, Mark: All short story writers, all critics of the form that I
> know, believe 'complexity of plot" ruins stories
>
> I am not disputing that the writers and critics you favor say this. And I
> do not dispute that the short story form is just not as well suited to
> TRP's talents than novels.
>
> But I don't think a complex plot NECESSARILY ruins a short story.
>
> Maybe this is cheating, but I think plots can be complex in a lot of ways.
> One is that short story plots can contain a lot of emotional complexity for
> the characters. Okay, sure. (And here I'm using "complexity" as both
> synonymous with and independent of "sophistication") Another is that even
> simple or straightforward plots can (and in any story should) engage with
> readerly expectations in complex ways. Short stories, in their compression,
> manage the EKG of audience expectations as carefully as jokes.
>
> I don't really disagree with you, Mark. Though I think maybe Pynchon is
> just being a bit glib there. It doesn't strike me as weird. Decades of
> removal make the unique perspective of having yourself written something
> even more complicated, I would guess. And I can understand how it'd be very
> difficult to see the early work as having a life of its own. (Not least
> because early work so seldom does.) But then I haven't reread the stories
> from SL yet. Maybe what you say will resonate more with me once I do.
>
> > On Feb 25, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We know and most do not believe in P's own harsh judgment of The Crying
> of Lot 49.
> >
> > But, rereading Under the Rose and his words about it, leads to other
> questions about
> > his harsh self-judgment.
> >
> > He sez, in minimizing Under the Rose that readers have become accustomed
> to Le Carre
> > who 'has upped the ante" for the whole genre. Quote from TRP in 1984:
> "Today we expect a complexity of plot and depth of character missing from
> my effort here".  Well,...
> >
> > Does that strike any others of you as ...weird? Le Carre writes novels (
> i know of no stories
> > and if there are, they are seldom read or considered, right?) which give
> room for complexity
> > of plot and depth of character.
> >
> > All short story writers, all critics of the form that I know, believe
> 'complexity of plot" ruins stories. All the unspooling and therefore
> contrived respooling, so to speak. And, if character is mostly revealed
> > in fiction by responses within actions and scenes, then of course real
> depth of character
> > is unattainable. To reveal depth like a perfect snapshot is what many of
> the best stories
> > do. As I think someone said (setting up story vs novel as
> snapshot--unity of effect--vs a
> > novel, a movie)
> >
> > Then he says this story is, "happily, mostly chase scenes" "for which I
> remain a dedicated
> > sucker"....invoking the eternal Road Runner plot.
> >
> > Really, TRP? Did we reread the same story? Perhaps you are conflating it
> with V, which
> > this plot line of, with Stencil and all, can feel more like a long chase
> scene. But here, I remember
> > most that window spying scene, the conversations and interactions of the
> characters, Bongo-Shaftsbury saying: "You screamed at the Chief".."You said
> 'Go away and die'"
> >
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160225/e97c11d3/attachment.html>