Theory, Methodology and Pynchon: What Matter Who’s Speaking?-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Theory, Methodology and Pynchon: What Matter Who’s Speaking?

Published:2014 Issue: Volume: Page:1-13
ISSN:
Container-title:Pynchon and Philosophy
language:
Short-container-title:

Author:

Eve Martin Paul

Abstract

AbstractThe writings of Thomas Pynchon have spawned more critical commentary than almost any other American author of the last fifty years. Pynchon’s texts are perhaps most famed for their ‘difficulty and apparent unfriendliness’, as works that require, as Inger H. Dalsgaard, Luc Herman and Brian McHale put it, ‘a collective enterprise of reading wherein none of us could succeed without the help of the others’.1 Among the interpretative toolkits that come in for a hard time in Pynchon’s writing, though, perhaps none are so disparaged and under-attempted as those of philosophy and theory.

Publisher

Palgrave Macmillan UK

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/9781137405500_1

Reference26 articles.

1. Inger H. Dalsgaard, Luc Herman and Brian McHale, ‘Introduction’, in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Pynchon, ed. Inger H. Dalsgaard, Luc Herman and Brian McHale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 8.

2. A slur I find somewhat difficult to take other than personally in light of my article, Martin Paul Eve, ‘Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace and the Problems of “Metamodernism”: Post-Millennial Post-Postmodernism?’, C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-century Writings 1, no. 1 (2012): 7–25.

3. See, for instance, Kathryn Hume, ‘The Religious and Political Vision of Pynchon’s Against the Day’, Philological Quarterly 86, no. 1/2 (Winter 2007): 163–87;

4. for further discussion, see my book chapter Martin Paul Eve, ‘“It Sure’s Hell Looked Like War”: Terrorism and the Cold War in Thomas Pynchon’s Against the Day and Don DeLillo’s Underworld’, in Thomas Pynchon and the (De)vices of Global (Post)modernity, ed. Zofia Kolbuszewska (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2013), 39–53.

5. Adam Kelly, ‘Beginning with Postmodernism’, Twentieth Century Literature 57, no. 3/4 (Winter/Fall 2011): 396;