Literary discussion?

[ish mailian]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/satire-lives

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/controversial-satire-michel-houellebecq



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:39 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/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160101/2a841a9b/attachment.html>