Watts article

[Malignd]

>From Rob Jackson:

<<It isn't a tourist brochure, and that's the point.
The "historic landmarks" phrase is sardonic …>>

There is nothing to indicate that he’s being other
than descriptive.

<<I'm a bit unclear on what you are arguing then.
Either he went there or he didn't. The article is
clearly implying that he did go there for the specific
purpose of writing about the place and the people in
the context of the Deadwyler shooting and the previous
year's riots. 

I’m saying the article certainly implies he went there
and, I’ve never claimed that he didn’t.  Rather, that
the writing is so flat and unspecific that it
certainly could have been mailed in.  Were it shown
that he in fact never did set foot in Watts, the only
surprise would be his dishonesty.  Nothing about the
article would lend any surprise. 

<<You seem to expect some breathless travelogue with
quirky locals as his tour guides, museum and souvenir
information and restaurant and hotel reviews.>>

What have I said that would lead you even remotely to
that bizarre conclusion?

<<I also suspect that if his informants thought they
were going to be named then they wouldn't have spoken
to him.>>

For what unfathomable reason?  The “Man” might get
them?

<<It seems to me that you are trying to argue that he
didn't go there, that it's a deception.>>

Again, I’m saying that this is writing so unspecific
and flat (not to say callow and jejune) he might just
as well have stayed home.  And yes, it wouldn’t
surprise me if he never went there, although I’m not
saying he didn’t.  I obviously have no way of knowing.
 But the piece is not very good. 

>From Kent Mueller:

<<I've always thought of that article as more in the
line of "New Journalism" (Hunter S. Thompson, Tom
Wolfe, etc.) and never tried to read it as actual
reportage.>>

Have you ever read a word of Tom Wolfe?  Tom Wolfe’s a
research demon.  His eye for detail and his dogged
pursuit of the specific make any piece of his you
might pick up the opposite of Pynchon’s flaccid
effort.  

>From davemarc:

<<For those interested in the different standards for
the Times magazine and the Times newspaper, consider
this article by Dan Okrent. It talks about the
differences that exist today, but perhaps it offers
some insight into articles such as Pynchon's.>>

I saw the article to which you refer and, yes there
are different standards, which is a way of saying that
the dodginess of this article wouldn’t have passed
muster as newspaper journalism, but is allowable in a
magazine.  There’s still the standard of quality.

I would suggest to anyone on this list unfamiliar with
it to read into Smiling Through the Apocalypse, a
compilation of Esquire’s magazine journalism from the
sixties.  It will give you an idea of the quality of
writing that others were doing at the time on similar
topics, and some notion of why I find Pynchon’s
article so thin and wan. 





	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail