Schmuck Amuck

[Andersen Jesper Sparre]

> Your critique which followed Keith's did not evoke any zealot responses.  Keith
> introduced himself by demeaning anyone who thought M&D had merit.  That is why he
> got the response, not because he did not like M&D.


Sure.  That's right.  But think about the critique Keith made in a larger 
context (yeah, yeah new wave language -- sorry I'm still in college - it 
pervades [but I digress])  As many of you pointed out the early reviews 
of M&D were by and large worth little more than the paper they were 
written on.  No one had read the book completely, and the analysis didn't 
really go beyond that which we all knew years ago (mason and dixon line 
-- severing a young nation, modernisms failures ...).  In other words 
they didn't really spend too much time on the damn things.  The problem, 
or perhaps more correctly stated, the disagreement (and this is now soley 
my point, Keith is on his own here, perhaps) is that the reviews I read 
(I read a fair amount) were very, very favorable.  That does seem to 
suggest that a bunch of inadequate reviewers were awed by the great TRP 
but unable to actually accomplish the task of reading his novel (at least 
in the short time span provided), and therefore, simply published a 
gushing review without knowing what they're refering to.  Think about some 
of reviews written.  Taking dog, Ben Franklin, smokin' dope with George 
and Martha, and that's about where the description stops.  Did they stop 
reading at page 300?  You get the idea.


Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the members of the list (at 
least for my argument) but rather with a nation of herd mentality book 
buyers.  I have every faith that people here are capable of forming their 
own reasonable conclusions.

	Jesper Andersen