raptoravatar reblogged your post and added:
This is a good point, but I’ve always found him more emotionally resonant than most people do. Partly cause of the way the beauty of the writing itself makes me feel threaded to the character’s inner lives and partly because I’m more interested in the churn of ideas and coincidences and just the pleasure of watching the intellectual machinery on like, a fireworks level than I am having a moral stance laid out for me. In fact, the thing I probably like the least about “ij” is the way that it feels like DFW wants to ‘teach you a lesson’ on some j Walter weatherman shit whereas Pynchon is more into forcing a confrontation with the absurd and letting you add some of it up yourself. I think I see as defferential a lot of what yr seeing as indifferent w/Pynchon.
Yeah, I think a lot of this is just that Pynchon's style works for you and not for me. I would be a lot less hung up on his worldview if his books were more resonant for me sentence by sentence.
I guess I feel like the version of "the absurd" I get from Pynchon is just ultimately a pretty constrained and predictable one. He's "surreal" in the same way that it would be "surreal" to sit around for 8 hours with a boring old hippie who keeps rambling about Carlos Castaneda and asking if "fractals" are something you "dig" and stressing that he's "always thought women's lib was groovy." It's a very narrow and ultimately very annoying kind of "weirdness."
Wallace I've always found to be much more effectively creepy and surreal, even though his worldview is, if anything, more often stupid or wrong-headed than Pynchon's. I think most of his writing comes out of pain and desperation, and the "moralistic" aspects of it have always come off to me less as preaching and more like "well, you and I are in hideous searing pain, and I'm suggesting that we could maybe get out of this dark wood by going that way . . . at least it'll be better than sitting still, which is intolerable . . . " He's writing from experience, and sometimes experience leads him wildly astray, but I prefer this to Pynchon's distance and fetishism.
Like: neither of these writers can write women very well, as numerous people have noted. But the way Wallace can't write women is "he wrote a character obviously based on his mom who was this sort of horrific monstrous nightmare figure" and, you know, I can understand that, he's a guy with issues and he is writing from his issues.
The way Pynchon can't write women is "he comes up with a giant repetitive cast of sexy and 'liberated' and willing 'cool' female characters who are all uniformly submissive except the one who is a ~ravishing Oriental femme fatale~." This I have a much harder time forgiving. It isn't even interesting!