New York Times Magazine just pissed me off...
Keith Brecher
Keith_Brecher at brown.edu
Tue Mar 18 21:38:58 CST 1997
At 02:38 AM 3/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
> Anyone read the New York times magazine section this Sunday?
> There was an article by James Atlas how "easy" books are
> "in" now and that Gravity's Rainbow (and other such books
> which are "hard") may have fans and followers but that no
> one actually enjoys reading them. It was very disappointing
> to see such support of ignorance or at least support of not
> challenging yourself in a magazine I like to think is
> generally intellectually stimulating...
>
> Marisa
>
>Marisa--
Yeah. I read that crazy James Atlas piece and I was thinking the whole
time: man, this guy hates having to think too hard when he's reading. But,
why ruin it for the rest of us. The article should have been called "Ode to
Danielle Steele" or something. The hell of it is, GR is not all that
difficult and "Infinite Jest" probably should not be placed in the same
sentence as GR and "The Sot-Weed Factor." Now, "Women and Men": that's a
tough rewarding read and should have been in the slot occupied by Infinite
Jest. With regard to the NYT magazine being generally intellectually
stimulating, is that really true? It seems to me that the Times is more in
the business of anointing people and events as being especially newsworthy.
Witness the recent cover story on Bruce Springsteen in which we were
instructed that the bard from Jersey is a sort of John Steinbeck. Oh
ganders....
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list