M&D and Journalism

[davemarc]

Ever since posting to the effect that the NY Observer article was sorta
accurate, I've been a-thinking and a-thinking about it.  And I thought some
more about that London article, and about those reviews we've been reading.

Now, I still like a lot of the NY Observer article.  Somewhere in there are
some facts and research--I'm sure of it.  But yes, it's full of weird
assertions and strange claims.  We've all seen the Holt website, right?  I
think the article makes it seem as if it was some kind of brilliant pr
coup.  But really, folks--we know that it was nothing more than
serviceable, right?  And that brilliant pr campaign to stir up public
interest?  The reporter mentioned every little bookstore functionon the
website (what, were there four of them?), a radio ad, some unsubstantiated
mumbo-jumbo about getting the public to think the book would be
scarce....That's it?  I suggest that it doesn't take a pr genius to figure
out that Pynchon fans would by the book, and the point would be to get the
fence-sitters to buy it....

The article looks to me like it's actually a pr coup for the pr department
of Holt, making it look a lot cleverer than it really was in this case. 
Now, I think there's a story in how the department contended with P's
peculiarities without screwing up royally--I think the department did a
fine job--but I think that the Observer story hyped the department quite a
bit.

And as for how fashionable M&D is...there's probably some truth to that,
but I wonder where *the evidence* is.  Maybe I don't get out enough, but I
still haven't seen anyone but p-listers carrying the tome around.  So
again, I think there's hype here.

As for the reviews, I sympathize with journalists who seem to have been
driven to distraction by having to read the book on a tight deadline.  But
I'm disappointed at how many of these "literati" feel it necessary to call
Pynchon appreciators "nuts" and whine away about the complexity and bulk of
his writing--as if typical readers don't have the freedom to take their
time reading the book, treating it as an aesthetic object rather than 773
pages that have to be read and reviewed by Date X.  The critics are
entitled to their opinions, of course; I'm just a little surprised at how
philistine, narrow, and unimaginative (not to mention redundant) they end
up sounding.

At the bottom of my own whine-glass,  

davemarc