SLPAD - 17

[David Morris]

He’s written some beautifully complex characters. And his prose is often
exceptionally beautiful, quite separate from any abstraction. But his
novels have always been primarily about concepts and abstractions. And his
weakness has always been that certain characters have no purpose other than
as ciphers.

What’s hilarious is he’s giving himself advice that he never takes.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 6:40 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't you think that with most works, later works, he did better
> embody characters kinda differently?
> That is, yes, always the ideas ["themes, symbols or other abstract
> unifying agent]" but beyond these stories
> he sorta has the vision first or simultaneously and he works characters in
> themselves too, around, embedded
> in the vision rather than vice versa? ...
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 5:21 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This statement is simply hilarious, because Pynchon never stopped doing
>> this.  Ever.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:36 AM Michael Bailey <
>> michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > “It is simply wrong to begin with a theme, symbol or other abstract
>> > unifying agent, and then try to force characters and events to conform
>> to
>> > it.”
>> >
>> > Seems reasonable.
>> >
>> > The reason he’s more dismayed with “Entropy” than with “Lowlands,” is
>> that
>> > “Entropy” is built around the concept, while the earlier story began
>> with
>> > the characters, and then added the fancy stuff.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then there’s some fun with the etymology of “entropy,” an invented word.
>> > --
>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>> >
>
>
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>