National Review

[John Fazli]

Reviews of M & D hit a new low in the 30 June issue of National Review
in which one James Gardner (NR "art critic") admits to reading just 50
pages of the book which he then trashes as "unreadable" and "plotless". 
Pynchon, for those who hadn't yet realized it, writes with "garbled
syntax, his tin ear for dialogue, his dopey sense of humor, his
inability to create convincing characters."  Although I get the sense
that most folks on this list might not be subscribers, NR generally
maintains pretty high standards in their book, film and music reviews.
Maybe they hired this guy from the New Republic in a spirit of
bipartisan cooperation...Anyway, I couldn't resist an email to Mr.
Gardner:

> Dear Mr. Gardner,
> 
> I found your review of Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon unworthy of
> National Review.  Your smug admission that you didn't even bother to
> read more than fifty pages of the book which you go on to depict as a
> "dud" reflects poorly on your credibility as a reviewer.  The remainder
> of the review largely summarizes other reviews of the book, and in no
> way demonstrates any familiarity on your part with Pynchon's work.
> 
> Typical of the breathtaking benightedness you seem intent on
> demonstrating, the use of the word "presently" in a brief excerpt is
> cited as an anachronism.  The OED has several citations used exactly as
> in the excerpt you erroneously ridicule ranging from Caxton in 1485 to
> the Leeds Mercury of 1902.
> 
> Needless to say, I found M & D entertaining and compelling; reasonable
> people may disagree and may in fact find the book "unreadable". 
> Certainly the book demands effort on the part of the reader, but to a
> reviewer too lazy to bother with reading the object of his critique, why
> 'tis Untutored Foppery, Sir.
> 
> Regards,