New York Times Magazine just pissed me off...

[Keith Brecher]

At 12:16 AM 3/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> From: Keith Brecher <Keith_Brecher at brown.edu>
>> To: davemarc <davemarc at panix.com>
>> Subject: Re: New York Times Magazine just pissed me off...
>> Date: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 11:42 PM
>> 
>> At 10:58 PM 3/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> >> From: Keith Brecher <Keith_Brecher at brown.edu>
>> >> To: MESCOLAR <MESCOLAR at peddie.k12.nj.us>
>> >> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> >> Subject: Re: New York Times Magazine just pissed me off...
>> >> Date: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 10:38 PM
>> >> 
>> >> 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.... 
>> >
>> >Well, it still seems to be the paper of choice of P.  Though there's no
>> >denying that this week's magazine section was particularly disgraceful. 
>> >Worst succession of op-ed pieces I've seen in a while.
>> >
>> >I did like Frank Rich's piece on Scientology elsewhere in the Sunday
>> >Splash.  But today I read Alexander Cockburn's assertion in the New York
>> >Press that it was "a hysterical column...displaying utter ignorance of
>any
>> >of the issues involved."  Ah, enlightenment is such a scarce
>commodity....
>> >
>> >davemarc
>> >
>> davemarc--
>> I'm not sure why you say NYT is the paper of choice for TRP. I thought
>that
>> was the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
>
>I think the only newspaper that's ever officially published P is The New
>York Times.  I'm not aware of any hard evidence that P actually read/s AVA
>or even likes it.
>
>> I also read the pieces on Scientology
>> with interest. It will certainly be interesting to see two titans like
>the
>> Church of Scientology and the NYT bash each other around like King Kong
>and
>> Godzilla, though who's who? I think it would only be appropriate for the
>> NYT to allow Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Anne Archer, or Kirstie Alley
>space
>> next Sunday to rebut Frank Rich. Though I doubt it will make better
>reading
>> than Steve Martin's hilarious essay in one of the recent magazines. 
>
>Who's who?  At least the Times doesn't harass people who write nasty
>Letters to the Editor.  Too bad Scientology isn't merely an actors'
>workshop.
>
>davemarc
>
>davemarc--
You're right: TRP's only been published in the NYT unless you think he's
really Wanda Tinasky. Having only seen an excerpt in Lingua Franca, I'm
reserving judgement. The thing about TRP only being published in that hoary
old industry standard--NYTBR--is that he seems to make so much of the
preterite vs. the elect in his novels and consistently comes out on the
side of the preterite, in particular those poor schlemiels Benny Profane
and Tyrone Slothrop. Therefore, why publish exclusively in the house
newsletter of the elect: NYTBR? It would be interesting to see a TRP essay
in something like Star magazine or the National Enquirer. A considerably
more preterite writer seems to be William T. Vollmann who appeared a few
years ago in a once obscure fanzine called Uno Mas. 
I won't say anything more about Scientology except that BATTLEFIELD EARTH
is extremely long and I've known one person (not a Scientologist) who said
it was the best book she ever read. Hmmmm.
>
>