Blurbs for what?

[Richard Moorman]

>
>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?
>

Define "formal interest."  What gives?  What about informal interest?  

>
>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.

Is "political complexion" just typical British understatement or am I being 
snitty?  
 
>
>As for Barthelme, a writer who clearly is formally interesting, 

There's those words again!

>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. 
>

Cool.  

>
>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

Where was this?  I missed it.  

Thanks.

Richard

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Moorman     |  "You know, Richard, you're much more interesting
rmoorman at rmii.com   |   when you talk with your mouth full."
                    |                     --Andrew Tuttle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------