A simple Pynchon:Gaddis analogy

[davemarc]

> From: Brecher_Keith/mskcc_Neurology at mskmail.mskcc.org

Wherein Keith Brecher shows himself to have some nerve....

>         The problem with M&D, besides the fact that Walter Kirn has been 
>      proven right about it, 

I didn't realize that critical opinions were "provable."  I'd love an
explanation of how Kirn was proven right.

>      is that it fails in so many ways that it has to 
>      be considered one of the great literary hoaxes of the century. 

So M&D is a hoax, but a review by a critic who hadn't even finished the
book "has been proven right"?  Who's hoaxing whom, hmmm?

>      Besides 
>      being a falsely inflated best-seller, M&D "earned" rave review after

>      rave review which, in retrospect, are all total bullshit. Why?
Because 
>      M&D does not stand up on re-reading. 

B-but Kirn didn't even read it once.  I reviewed it--having set aside lots
of time to read it all the way through and read some parts over--and loved
it.  So my "rave" qualifies as total bullshit and Kirn's isn't?

C'mon Keith.  Get a grip on yourself.  Either express your points cogently
or figure out another way to scandalize this list.  Whatever you do, I'm
sure you Kirn do better than your feeble Gaddis analogy.  

davemarc