M&D criticism

[anon]

When I first read GR,there was much that I didn't understand. There were
characters that I neither understood nor liked. There was much in that
first reading that I could have criticized as mawkish, contrived,
unnecessary, telegraphed and shamelessly overdone. Yet by my 10th or 15th
reading, my understanding of the work, of myself, the history of our times
and the shape and thickness of that strange interface between humans and
human relationships have brought me to the opinion that GR is probably the
greatest novel of the 20th Century.

My reaction after my first reading of M&D was much the same as those
critiques which have recently caused such a storm on this list. After my
second reading (more an act of self discipline, and faith in my favorite
writer's ability) I found much more that I liked, much more depth and
further, many reasons for the alleged lack of depth in the characters,
framing device, and pace.

While GR is so wholly cinematic, my initial impression of M&D has to do
with television, the way characters and stories on TV are framed, the way
stories are paced.....not yet very well thought out but I'm working on it.

A partial reading is no basis for criticism of any work and IMHO a first or
second reading is no basis for a criticism (good or bad) of any work by
TRP.

John Atchison ||||||||||
blicero at linknet.net

"Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from 
the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble"
                     Samuel Johnson