I was all ready to write my latest entry — it involved dachshunds, hang gliding, and the Swedish bikini team — when I chanced upon this article about the possible release of a new novel.
Out went the Swedish bikini team, in went Thomas Pynchon.
To say I was once obsessed with Pynchon is to put too a fine a point on it; but it is a fair assessment to say that I once called him my favorite author, though I didn’t completely understand (nor could I explain) his books. There is something hypnotic about the man and his work, even though most all of we know about the man is through his work.
For it is not necessarily his writing that people know of Thomas Pynchon. If you have read all of “V.” or “Mason & Dixon,” you have little company. And if you’ve read his magnum opus, “Gravity’s Rainbow,” cover to cover, raise your hand. Ah, just as I thought. No stink in here, because nobody raised their hands and exposed their armpits.
If you know about Pynchon, it is because you know he is obsessive about his privacy. No pictures. No book tours. No interviews, blogs, or appearances at the National Book Awards.
His secretive existence has created a mystique about the man that undoubtedly outstrips the reality, which is that Pynchon is, by all accounts, simply a quiet and withdrawn dude, though he “appeared” on The Simpsons.
There have been many a thesis written on Pynchon that have less to do with his work than on his identity: he doesn’t exist, he is an amalgam of several writers, he is really Anita Ekberg or Paris Hilton, etc.
If you need a book explaining you…
Which brings me back to the latest book. A blurb on Amazon.com reportedly is by the great man himself, describing his forthcoming work. Without going into detail, what I found interesting was less the description itself than the commentary from readers, at least one person in particular:
“Pynchon has engaged in hypertextual self-parody of the strangest order…”
“This is the new conspiracy, the conspiracy of identity (an attack on identity politics?).”
“My guess is viral-marketing or, more hopefully, a Swiftian self-parody and critique of Internet subcultures (a sort of new, updated Tale of a Tub.)”
Granted, the same fella wrote all three of these comments. But it reflects the conspiratorial nature of Pynchon’s work and his obsessive fans’ desire for, well, more Pynchon.
While the prospect of a Pynchon novel first excited me, it ultimately left me depressed, like the time a writing teacher first described a short story of mine as “promising” then compared it to an “effluent stream.”
I first read “V.” when I was in college, and the next 10 to 15 years I spent trying to crank out pale, pale imitations. If I didn’t want to be Pynchon, I certainly wanted to be able to write like Pynchon. This turned out to be a grave mistake.
For Pynchon’s strengths — his dazzling erudition and brilliant sense of humor — are also his weaknesses, and I was drawn to these things like sleaze to Atlantic City.
Pynchon’s characters can be flat, and the emotional import of his work can border on constipated, but I never really cared because everything else was so brilliant, funny, and even moving. (The chapter “Mondaugen’s story” in “V.” and the short story “Entropy” are simply some of the best American fiction that’s been written the last half century.)
And if Pynchon could get away with limited character development and emotional depth, why couldn’t I?
So much of my early fiction is marked by wackiness and incoherent, pseudo-intellectual ramblings, just like Pychon, except without the wit or actual intelligence.
We all imitate our influences when we first pick up the pen, as we feel out what we know and search for that elusive voice. Sometimes, however, imitation can be dangerous.
Trying to write like Pynchon is like trying to make a movie out of “Gravity’s Rainbow”: you may think you are undertaking a noble endeavor, but futility is your reward. A mere mortal like myself just doesn’t have any business trying to replicate or even imitate someone like Pynchon, no more than I have any business imitating Joyce, Virginia Woolf, or the late, not-so-great Mickey Spillane.
Pynchon traffics in conspiracies and dark secrets, plots translated on milk cartons, cabals embedded in Zip codes. This has great appeal to certain types like myself, who seek deeper meanings to explain the chaos of human existence; or, you could say, a lot of his readers are guys who grew up on comic books and science fiction. If you were to make “The Matrix” even more didactic, obscure, globe-trotting, and without Keanu Reeves, you’d have a Pynchon movie.
My path of destruction started here
Even if I were to get an IQ implant and could write like Pynchon, it doesn’t mean that I would get a lot of fans — Pynchon leaves a lot of readers cold. With their brainy, hyper-intellectual, erudite work, Richard Powers and David Foster Wallace are considered the natural heirs to Pynchon, but I can’t seem to get into their work. Because at this age, it I probably want more than mere brilliance (though I been told to read “Galatea 2.0.” Told several times.)
So when it’s released, I’ll buy Pynchon’s latest, read it, not understand it, and flap my gums on its greatness. But I won’t mimic it.
Please, God, stop me.
As long as you don’t try to imitate him, God shouldn’t have to stop you, Fraud.
And DFW is cute as all get-out, but he bores me to tears. He doesn’t have that Pynchon-vintage vibe that keeps me hooked for a chapter or two. DFW is just annoying. White bandana in an author photo annoying.
Genius novelists like their privacy because they don’t want to be exposed as frauds. Yes? Maybe. I’ve heard it told. And I just listened to one of my great crushes (Updike) on the Bat Segundo show exposing himself all over the damn place. Now that’s a stinky room.
I fell in love with Vineland but haven’t gotten through anything else of his. He’s one of those writers that I say, “Yeah, I love his stuff” and then try to avoid mentioning that I’ve only read the one book. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez also springs to mind.)
Do you think, instead of imitating the writers we love, we should instead pour our talents into vilifying the writers we hate? Not so much vilifying, maybe, but propping up their book on top of the computer monitor and repeating, “You can’t do worse…you can’t do worse…”
As long as you don’t try to imitate him, God shouldn’t have to stop you, Fraud.
And DFW is cute as all get-out, but he bores me to tears. He doesn’t have that Pynchon-vintage vibe that keeps me hooked for a chapter or two. DFW is just annoying. White bandana in an author photo annoying.
Genius novelists like their privacy because they don’t want to be exposed as frauds. Yes? Maybe. I’ve heard it told. And I just listened to one of my great crushes (Updike) on the Bat Segundo show exposing himself all over the damn place. Now that’s a stinky room.
As long as you don’t try to imitate him, God shouldn’t have to stop you, Fraud.
And DFW is cute as all get-out, but he bores me to tears. He doesn’t have that Pynchon-vintage vibe that keeps me hooked for a chapter or two. DFW is just annoying. White bandana in an author photo annoying.
Genius novelists like their privacy because they don’t want to be exposed as frauds. Yes? Maybe. I’ve heard it told. And I just listened to one of my great crushes (Updike) on the Bat Segundo show exposing himself all over the damn place. Now that’s a stinky room.
I fell in love with Vineland but haven’t gotten through anything else of his. He’s one of those writers that I say, “Yeah, I love his stuff” and then try to avoid mentioning that I’ve only read the one book. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez also springs to mind.)
Do you think, instead of imitating the writers we love, we should instead pour our talents into vilifying the writers we hate? Not so much vilifying, maybe, but propping up their book on top of the computer monitor and repeating, “You can’t do worse…you can’t do worse…”
I fell in love with Vineland but haven’t gotten through anything else of his. He’s one of those writers that I say, “Yeah, I love his stuff” and then try to avoid mentioning that I’ve only read the one book. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez also springs to mind.)
Do you think, instead of imitating the writers we love, we should instead pour our talents into vilifying the writers we hate? Not so much vilifying, maybe, but propping up their book on top of the computer monitor and repeating, “You can’t do worse…you can’t do worse…”
The Crying of Lot 49 was my Pynchon book. Loved it. I have Gravity’s Rainbow and Mason & Dixon on the shelf. Tried the former, failed. Never opened the later after buying it.
villifying them . . .that tactic sounds familiar . . .hmmm . . . I’m sensing a word . . .
I’ve never tackled any Pynchon. I’ve tried to love DFW, I mean really, I’ve tried but I just can’t seem to do it. I understand what he’s trying to do but something about his writing just irks me. Or maybe I’m just really stupid and don’t understand the big words. I am a blonde, you know, despite all the people who were surprised to find out I was in fact, not a brunette goth girl.
The Crying of Lot 49 was my Pynchon book. Loved it. I have Gravity’s Rainbow and Mason & Dixon on the shelf. Tried the former, failed. Never opened the later after buying it.
villifying them . . .that tactic sounds familiar . . .hmmm . . . I’m sensing a word . . .
The Crying of Lot 49 was my Pynchon book. Loved it. I have Gravity’s Rainbow and Mason & Dixon on the shelf. Tried the former, failed. Never opened the later after buying it.
villifying them . . .that tactic sounds familiar . . .hmmm . . . I’m sensing a word . . .
I’ve never tackled any Pynchon. I’ve tried to love DFW, I mean really, I’ve tried but I just can’t seem to do it. I understand what he’s trying to do but something about his writing just irks me. Or maybe I’m just really stupid and don’t understand the big words. I am a blonde, you know, despite all the people who were surprised to find out I was in fact, not a brunette goth girl.
I’ve never tackled any Pynchon. I’ve tried to love DFW, I mean really, I’ve tried but I just can’t seem to do it. I understand what he’s trying to do but something about his writing just irks me. Or maybe I’m just really stupid and don’t understand the big words. I am a blonde, you know, despite all the people who were surprised to find out I was in fact, not a brunette goth girl.
Consider: Do you have an idol fetish?
benny: interesting thesis re: privacy. i hadn’t thought of it that way. though everybody is worried about being exposed as a fraud; thus, my anonymity.
brian f.: “vineland” is a good book, one that i could actually explain to you. pynchon’s other books are less savored than earned; he’s rewarding but difficult.
i have spent many hours vilifying other writers who manage to get their monkeycrap published. i can do better. sigh.
quinn: i loved “mason & dixon.” ok, “love” may not be correct. it’s a slog. but rewarding!
let’s not get into vilifying people! bookfraud is about love!
rebecca: interesting you use the verb “tackle” when describing pynchon’s work. you are not the first to get hung up on foster wallace’s verbiage. he makes me feel stupid, and not just because his ideas are grand: he just seems intent on making me feel stupid.
you’re not a brunette goth girl? not even a redhead?
bernita: if you mean kelly clarkson, no.
Nope. All ditzy blonde here. I think DFW wants to make us all feel stupid. He’s just sneaky about it. That way, we get halfway through his book before we realize it.
Oh, Bookfraud is SO not about love. Bookfraud has the capacity to be Miss Snark on mood meds but snarky nonetheless.
Consider: Do you have an idol fetish?
Consider: Do you have an idol fetish?
Pardon my Holden Caulfield moment.
I like it that authors want privacy. I don’t want to start seeing them in US Weekly. It’s bad enough when they start lecturing in MFA programs.
I believe I agree with Benny. I don’t like my authors demystified.
Based on this and several of your posts, your IQ is serving us quite well. No need to consider an implant. Perhaps you’ll review Pynchon’s new book for us after you’ve read it.
rebecca s.: i was so hoping you were a redhead. not a ditzy lucile ball type, though.
foster wallace’s essays often slam fiction that he deems less-than-ambitious, so you are right about him being sneaky regarding our stupidity. did that make sense?
brian f.: wrong you are! it’s all about love! and exclamation points! though i don’t know what kind of mood altering drugs you refer to! miss snark on ludes, valium, xanax, or speed!
benny: i don’t think you have to worry about most authors becoming glam queens, appearing on “oprah” and all that. wait a minute, wasn’t toni morrison on there?
i don’t think pynchon is hiding because he’s worried about being unmasked, just he’s a hyper-private person. when he was a technical writer for boeing, he hung computer paper from ceiling to floor as not to be bothered. of course, he was writing on “v.” at work.
fringes: thank you for the nice comment regarding my intelligence, but when it comes to brains, i am as far from thomas pynchon as george bush is from einstein. maybe i will post a review, however.
benny: interesting thesis re: privacy. i hadn’t thought of it that way. though everybody is worried about being exposed as a fraud; thus, my anonymity.
brian f.: “vineland” is a good book, one that i could actually explain to you. pynchon’s other books are less savored than earned; he’s rewarding but difficult.
i have spent many hours vilifying other writers who manage to get their monkeycrap published. i can do better. sigh.
benny: interesting thesis re: privacy. i hadn’t thought of it that way. though everybody is worried about being exposed as a fraud; thus, my anonymity.
brian f.: “vineland” is a good book, one that i could actually explain to you. pynchon’s other books are less savored than earned; he’s rewarding but difficult.
i have spent many hours vilifying other writers who manage to get their monkeycrap published. i can do better. sigh.
quinn: i loved “mason & dixon.” ok, “love” may not be correct. it’s a slog. but rewarding!
let’s not get into vilifying people! bookfraud is about love!
rebecca: interesting you use the verb “tackle” when describing pynchon’s work. you are not the first to get hung up on foster wallace’s verbiage. he makes me feel stupid, and not just because his ideas are grand: he just seems intent on making me feel stupid.
you’re not a brunette goth girl? not even a redhead?
bernita: if you mean kelly clarkson, no.
quinn: i loved “mason & dixon.” ok, “love” may not be correct. it’s a slog. but rewarding!
let’s not get into vilifying people! bookfraud is about love!
rebecca: interesting you use the verb “tackle” when describing pynchon’s work. you are not the first to get hung up on foster wallace’s verbiage. he makes me feel stupid, and not just because his ideas are grand: he just seems intent on making me feel stupid.
you’re not a brunette goth girl? not even a redhead?
bernita: if you mean kelly clarkson, no.
Nope. All ditzy blonde here. I think DFW wants to make us all feel stupid. He’s just sneaky about it. That way, we get halfway through his book before we realize it.
Nope. All ditzy blonde here. I think DFW wants to make us all feel stupid. He’s just sneaky about it. That way, we get halfway through his book before we realize it.
Oh, Bookfraud is SO not about love. Bookfraud has the capacity to be Miss Snark on mood meds but snarky nonetheless.
Oh, Bookfraud is SO not about love. Bookfraud has the capacity to be Miss Snark on mood meds but snarky nonetheless.
Pardon my Holden Caulfield moment.
I like it that authors want privacy. I don’t want to start seeing them in US Weekly. It’s bad enough when they start lecturing in MFA programs.
Pardon my Holden Caulfield moment.
I like it that authors want privacy. I don’t want to start seeing them in US Weekly. It’s bad enough when they start lecturing in MFA programs.
I believe I agree with Benny. I don’t like my authors demystified.
Based on this and several of your posts, your IQ is serving us quite well. No need to consider an implant. Perhaps you’ll review Pynchon’s new book for us after you’ve read it.
I believe I agree with Benny. I don’t like my authors demystified.
Based on this and several of your posts, your IQ is serving us quite well. No need to consider an implant. Perhaps you’ll review Pynchon’s new book for us after you’ve read it.
rebecca s.: i was so hoping you were a redhead. not a ditzy lucile ball type, though.
foster wallace’s essays often slam fiction that he deems less-than-ambitious, so you are right about him being sneaky regarding our stupidity. did that make sense?
brian f.: wrong you are! it’s all about love! and exclamation points! though i don’t know what kind of mood altering drugs you refer to! miss snark on ludes, valium, xanax, or speed!
rebecca s.: i was so hoping you were a redhead. not a ditzy lucile ball type, though.
foster wallace’s essays often slam fiction that he deems less-than-ambitious, so you are right about him being sneaky regarding our stupidity. did that make sense?
brian f.: wrong you are! it’s all about love! and exclamation points! though i don’t know what kind of mood altering drugs you refer to! miss snark on ludes, valium, xanax, or speed!
benny: i don’t think you have to worry about most authors becoming glam queens, appearing on “oprah” and all that. wait a minute, wasn’t toni morrison on there?
i don’t think pynchon is hiding because he’s worried about being unmasked, just he’s a hyper-private person. when he was a technical writer for boeing, he hung computer paper from ceiling to floor as not to be bothered. of course, he was writing on “v.” at work.
fringes: thank you for the nice comment regarding my intelligence, but when it comes to brains, i am as far from thomas pynchon as george bush is from einstein. maybe i will post a review, however.
benny: i don’t think you have to worry about most authors becoming glam queens, appearing on “oprah” and all that. wait a minute, wasn’t toni morrison on there?
i don’t think pynchon is hiding because he’s worried about being unmasked, just he’s a hyper-private person. when he was a technical writer for boeing, he hung computer paper from ceiling to floor as not to be bothered. of course, he was writing on “v.” at work.
fringes: thank you for the nice comment regarding my intelligence, but when it comes to brains, i am as far from thomas pynchon as george bush is from einstein. maybe i will post a review, however.
It did make sense. And I love exclamation points. And I did have red hair about a month ago. If I’d have known about your fondness for red hair, I would have kept it.
It did make sense. And I love exclamation points. And I did have red hair about a month ago. If I’d have known about your fondness for red hair, I would have kept it.
It did make sense. And I love exclamation points. And I did have red hair about a month ago. If I’d have known about your fondness for red hair, I would have kept it.
I would love to have Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow fully conquered though. I sometimes think I’m missing out because I’ve not finished it. The whole reason I never attempted M&D is because of my failure with Gravity.
(that sounds odd out of context – that damn gravity, gets me every time)
Maybe now that I’m a little older than I was when I first tried, I’ll be able to get my brain around it. Maybe I’ll try DFW, but not Jest. A book that big feels like too much of an investment right now, and I’m trying to move faster.
I would love to have Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow fully conquered though. I sometimes think I’m missing out because I’ve not finished it. The whole reason I never attempted M&D is because of my failure with Gravity.
(that sounds odd out of context – that damn gravity, gets me every time)
Maybe now that I’m a little older than I was when I first tried, I’ll be able to get my brain around it. Maybe I’ll try DFW, but not Jest. A book that big feels like too much of an investment right now, and I’m trying to move faster.
I would love to have Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow fully conquered though. I sometimes think I’m missing out because I’ve not finished it. The whole reason I never attempted M&D is because of my failure with Gravity.
(that sounds odd out of context – that damn gravity, gets me every time)
Maybe now that I’m a little older than I was when I first tried, I’ll be able to get my brain around it. Maybe I’ll try DFW, but not Jest. A book that big feels like too much of an investment right now, and I’m trying to move faster.
Very exciting news about Pynchon, but I sort of missed the post about the Swedish bikini team.
Very exciting news about Pynchon, but I sort of missed the post about the Swedish bikini team.
Very exciting news about Pynchon, but I sort of missed the post about the Swedish bikini team.
rebecca s.: i posted on your blog! about redheads! i wish you would have kept it!
quinn: “gravity’s rainbow” is a vastly different book than “mason & dixon,” though they are both fiendishly difficult; however “rainbow” is exponentially harder than “m&d.” ever tackle “vineland”?
neil: the swedish bikini team will get full treatment in bookfraud. promise.
rebecca s.: i posted on your blog! about redheads! i wish you would have kept it!
quinn: “gravity’s rainbow” is a vastly different book than “mason & dixon,” though they are both fiendishly difficult; however “rainbow” is exponentially harder than “m&d.” ever tackle “vineland”?
neil: the swedish bikini team will get full treatment in bookfraud. promise.