Blurbs for what?

[Jan KLIMKOWSKI]

Interesting conversation about the textual status of blurbs going on here, 
but I haven't noticed many remarks about  the types of book Pynchon writes 
blurbs for.

Some of the first books I was led towards by virtue of an "endorsement" by 
TP were 1970s works by Mary Beal and Marge Piercy.  It seems to me that 
there is very little of formal interest in these works.  So why would TP 
write favourably about them?

About the same time I was led to Kirkpatrick Sale's history of the American 
student movement, "SDS", which had a Pynchon link.  If I remember correctly, 
the link was that TP was one of the people thanked by Sale for his 
contribution during the writing of the book.

If we add in such as Tom Robbins circa "Even Cowgirls..." and of course 
Farina the obvious pattern that emerges is that TP is writing blurbs for 
books of a certain political complexion.

As for Barthelme, a writer who clearly is formally interesting, I love the 
notion (which Paul Maliszewski reminded us of) that Barthelme was able to 
sneak stuff from his dreams past customs agents to the other side, a 
challenge which  Pynchon suggested few other writers were rising to.   For 
me, this ties in to recent comments about Pynchon's attitude to otherworldly 
phenomena being more far complex than most of the litcrit is able to permit. 


And finally I'd like to just say that "Is it OK to be a Luddite?" is, along 
with the Watts piece, absolutely central to my understanding of Pynchon's 
artistic project.

jan