King-

Not bad thoughts. The offside trap is frustrating. It's a well-established part of the game, but nonetheless does diminish scoring chances and, when employed with rigid discipline, ends up being a bit cynical. How to fix that has long been a problem no one seems able to solve. I like the idea that defenders moving forward wouldn't place an offensive player left behind in an offside position. Especially if the attacking player's team is in possession of the ball in the attacking half when the surge forward occurs. Could it be officiated? I would assume there's a way.

On diving, I don't think anyone likes. It's a very cynical part of the game. It's accepted pragmatically, since there's very little to be done about it. It's disdained and disparaged, unless one of your players dives and gains a crucial advantage. Then, it becomes "smart". Perhaps it couldn't be fixed during the game (although 10 minutes out could be be an intriguing fix if a player is carted off), but perhaps it could be fined out of existence, with replay evidence being used to levy very hefty fines on players after the fact, with the stiupation the players themselves must pay the fine. I think there are fines after the fact already, but maybe fines and suspensions or some such combination would be enough of a disincentive.

These things aren't likely to be fixed, but your suggestions do have merit in that they are "positive" modifications that wouldn't change the essential nature of the game, and would, if they could be employed, most likely improve the flow and scoring chances. Not bad for a newcomer.

...or at least passionate feelings about the form persist. Which is good to see.

I can't speak to Laura Miller's acumen or agenda (and I really dislike the whole shooting-the-messenger thing), but it does seem there's a critical consensus emerging about this book.

For his part, I think someone like Pynchon is almost destined to become a victim of his own success if he continues writing. I often use pop music as an example. Some bands create a perfect album, and then we're forever disappointed by subsequent efforts. But we'd like most of them just fine if the band hadn't also produced something truly sublime that overshadows them. We tend to focus on the disappointments rather than savoring the gem. The gem isn't devalued (in real terms of achievement) by its less-exalted siblings, but in terms of perception, such works often suffer because of the assembled company they keep. The Stones had a helluva run before the lesser albums started coming. What if the Beatles hadn't broken up? Would there have been an album released that wasn't as good as their best work? I would imagine. Same holds true for most anyone. Pollock had a breakthrough, but how many spatter paintings later did something else visionary emerge?

The Big Idea novel...How many Big Ideas are there really, anyway? How many compelling Theories of Everything? There are very few artists in the history of any discipline that have kept trumping themselves or even reinventing themselves successfully. Pynchon had/has a vision that he realized brilliantly. If there's a flaw (tactically speaking), it's that we got everything from him all at once (or twice, or whatever). It was so intoxicating that we can't help wanting more, even when wanting more of genius is admittedly a lot to ask.

If Pynchon has stumbled here, so be it. I, for one, have come not to expect uninterrupted brilliance. Einstein had his Big Ideas, and then not so much. He took us a long way down the road to a Theory of Everything, but he couldn't unlock all the secrets before he died. What he did give us is no less grand for that fact.

And actually I find it comforting to discover that great minds and talents stumble, or run out of steam. It's humanizing, and encouraging, and instructive to anyone who creates or appreciates to see that.

Perhaps Ms. Miller et al are wrong, and this book is a misunderstood treasure. But the sun will also rise if they're right.

As for Stephenson, I'm a fan and recommend the Baroque Cycle to anyone who'll listen, but he's no Pynchon. Pynchon's successors might indeed have offered up better books than Against the Day. But none of them have yet given us a Gravity's Rainbow or The Crying of Lot 49.

In looking over the teaser for this article, I guess the real bone of contention isn't whether Against the Day is a good book or not, but whether the pupils have surpassed the master.

Naturally, one wants to provoke interest. But I would agree with all those who've said (and I guess I did, too) that the pupils have yet to produce anything that surpasses Pynchon's best work; perhaps they've passed up his "worst" work.

It's craftily composed, that "...now write better...than he does." But it's a little breathless and more contentious than it needs to be. Neither Infinite Jest nor the Baroque Cycle come close to the profane majesty and ambition of Gravity's Rainbow.