Schmuck Amuck

[Andersen Jesper Sparre]

> get.  You criticize name calling, then end your post with a fine example of
> such.
> 
> > You only make yourselves out as thin skinned Pynchon groupies who can't
> > find anything to fault with him.
> >
> >         Jesper Andersen
> 
> Schwitterz
> 
The point was not that any of you are "thin skinned pynchon groupies", 
but that your rather simplistic shots at the critique of TRP have had no 
substantive content.  Instead you've been focusing on how he must be 
meaning the x author really sucked the big one how stupid was that yada 
yada yada.  Which was entertaining for the first four posts, I'll admit, 
but doesn't really transcend Keith's origional errors, and does little to 
actually defend Pynchon except to imply that you all think TRP is worht 
defending so why not name call.  

The basic gripe I have here is that the discussion surrounding M&D has 
been very civil until now, but that the first (ableit awkward) critique I 
have seen of M&D on this list server prevokes a zealot like response.  
This isn't what I wa expecting.  It isn't so strange to think that TRP 
had a great deal of trouble writing M&D due to the greatness of GR and 
that in dealing with this he did perhaps overworked M&D and ended up 
destroying a decent novel trying to make it great.  There are strong 
themes presented in M&D.  The problem is they're all layed out before 
they return to England.  The premise was worth a novel, but 800 pages 
_is_ stretching it.  GR was a huge and expansive novel, but every page 
was packed with ideas and humor, M&D just isn't as tight a novel.  I'm sure 
I've missed a lot in M&D but not nearly as much as in GR, and I've spent 
a lot more time with Slothrop.