kfitz/kfitz-site
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

upgrade to 3.0

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
2024-10-14 19:27:15 -04:00
parent e8f8a543de
commit 655ad0ded8
1988 changed files with 47081 additions and 263 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

19
content/blog/2002-06-20-mining-the-backlist.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
---
title: 'Mining the Backlist'
date: '2002-06-20T10:46:45-04:00'
permalink: /mining-the-backlist/
tags:
- novels
---
I’m one of those folks whose first introduction to Richard Powers was [Galatea 2.2](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0060976926), which I suppose is the place that a lot of people start with him. Like [White Noise](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0140077022) is the place to start reading DeLillo, and [The Crying of Lot 49](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0060931671) is the place to start reading Pynchon. Some might argue that the drawing criterion is the relative brevity of these entry texts, but I think there’s something more to it than just brevity — it’s the entire project in miniature. Once you’ve read *COL49,* you know something about what Pynchon’s up to that makes it possible to take on [Gravity’s Rainbow](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0140188592). Similarly DeLillo: reading *White Noise* makes a later reading of [Underworld](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0684842696) possible.
So with Powers. But there’s this added hitch with *Galatea,* in that the novel purports to recount his publishing history up to that point, following a character named “Richard S. Powers” through his remembrances of the composition of his earlier novels. Does starting with *Galatea* inevitably ruin — or maybe that’s too harsh a word; maybe I just mean “color” — the reading of the previous texts?
I guess I was always afraid that it would, because I first read *Galatea* about four or five years ago, and never read any other Powers. Which is strange for me, as I tend to go on author-binges when I read something I love, and I loved *Galatea.*
So over the last month, I’ve begun making up for lost time, reading the Powers *oeuvre* in chronological sequence. I’ve finished [Three Farmers on Their Way to a Dance](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0060975091), which, as an example of a first novel, so intimidated me that I may never make another stab at the form. Also [Prisoner’s Dilemma](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0060977086) (which, while deeply moving, I’m relieved to say is my least favorite so far) and [The Gold Bug Variations](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=0060975008). About which I feel unqualified to say anything except wow.
I’m now on [Operation Wandering Soul](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0IBSHWP639&isbn=006097611X), the completion of which will take me back up to my starting point. Do I re-read *Galatea* then? I began this reading of the Powers backlist with a certain kind of “knowledge” about what these novels were up to — but now, with the novels themselves under my belt, will my sense of that prior “knowledge” change? Would that change further readings of the earlier books?
You gotta love a novel sequence with its own built-in recursive loop.