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

[Mark Kohut]

"Carefully-crafted' non-fic seems his natural quality by this time and
there is still a long way between that and the sublime genius
in the great novels and superb art of the others:
...Lyricism, Empson's ambiguity, density, allusion, etc.



On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Which one is not like the others?
>
> The book intro. Because book
>  Because time to think even between writing and proof stages.
>
>
> A---And it is about him, his own work. . Because about his style, vision,
> etc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20160225/0903939b/attachment.html>