Literary discussion?

[Mark Kohut]

I like the parsing of this distinction. Maybe that is the best way to
understand it.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l