I've read a lot of the discourse on Gravity's Rainbow, including some articles that made the book seem a whole lot less muddy than I believed, as long as one treats every detail as a metaphor. But this article is the first one that seems to have sidestepped the discourse altogether, to come at Pynchon orthogonally, historically, rather than getting sucked into the psychedelic hole of his charm. I like this view from the outside... though it strikes me as ironically Pynchonesque that you see a vast, spidery network of crypto-Pynchonian influence extending underneath modern lit. But you may well be right.
I haven't read Against the Day or Bleeding Edge, but I did all others. I like Pynchon, and he's amazing at what he does, but sometimes I want to grab him by the labels and beg him to concentrate and be a little more serious. I read Mason & Dixon last year, and it had some stunning sections, but so often it seemed like his other books just in a period costume. How many times can he gesture at the secret conspiracy without that trick getting old? Is it really so clever that he has George Washington smoking weed with his Black Jewish servant? At times the wonky intellectual swordplay seemed like the lame jokes of a fossilized stoner... And the hard layer of irony that encases everything--I'd like an author to talk to me straight, and not out of the corner of his mouth. Pynchon is in part so popular, I think, because his work is so cloaked in ambiguity and mystery; it invites people to spin their own theories, and to read greatness into what they cannot understand.
Thank you ! That’s what I’m after — not to get sucked into the psychedelic charm, because it seems to have hidden designs upon us, or at least to have hindered our ability to read the books outside a perspective they haven’t already anticipated. It seems almost as though we’ve been dazzled into assuming we can’t ask simple literary questions about his books (like the ones I tried to ask here).
I wonder if your Mason & Dixon scene is Pynchon at one station in his long drift away from morbidity to writing more joke-filled books. But anyway there’s so much tedium — so many tedious jokes — and episodes I could happily toss out. The boredom, too, gets in the way of asking questions.
I want other influences, other paths to walk down. I am nervous that any literature that takes its cues from Pynchon will risk lifelessness or risk appearing partial compared to him … I think the other paths are there, but there is more to say. But the uncovering of this obstacle hopefully will make it more clear what to look for ..
I've read a lot of the discourse on Gravity's Rainbow, including some articles that made the book seem a whole lot less muddy than I believed, as long as one treats every detail as a metaphor. But this article is the first one that seems to have sidestepped the discourse altogether, to come at Pynchon orthogonally, historically, rather than getting sucked into the psychedelic hole of his charm. I like this view from the outside... though it strikes me as ironically Pynchonesque that you see a vast, spidery network of crypto-Pynchonian influence extending underneath modern lit. But you may well be right.
I haven't read Against the Day or Bleeding Edge, but I did all others. I like Pynchon, and he's amazing at what he does, but sometimes I want to grab him by the labels and beg him to concentrate and be a little more serious. I read Mason & Dixon last year, and it had some stunning sections, but so often it seemed like his other books just in a period costume. How many times can he gesture at the secret conspiracy without that trick getting old? Is it really so clever that he has George Washington smoking weed with his Black Jewish servant? At times the wonky intellectual swordplay seemed like the lame jokes of a fossilized stoner... And the hard layer of irony that encases everything--I'd like an author to talk to me straight, and not out of the corner of his mouth. Pynchon is in part so popular, I think, because his work is so cloaked in ambiguity and mystery; it invites people to spin their own theories, and to read greatness into what they cannot understand.
Thank you ! That’s what I’m after — not to get sucked into the psychedelic charm, because it seems to have hidden designs upon us, or at least to have hindered our ability to read the books outside a perspective they haven’t already anticipated. It seems almost as though we’ve been dazzled into assuming we can’t ask simple literary questions about his books (like the ones I tried to ask here).
I wonder if your Mason & Dixon scene is Pynchon at one station in his long drift away from morbidity to writing more joke-filled books. But anyway there’s so much tedium — so many tedious jokes — and episodes I could happily toss out. The boredom, too, gets in the way of asking questions.
I want other influences, other paths to walk down. I am nervous that any literature that takes its cues from Pynchon will risk lifelessness or risk appearing partial compared to him … I think the other paths are there, but there is more to say. But the uncovering of this obstacle hopefully will make it more clear what to look for ..
Thank you ! This was beautiful.
Thank you, I hope it proves useful to you.
Wonderful critical essay !