Hitting Below the Mason -Dixon Line

[jbor at bigpond.com]

I'm not so sure. My immediate reaction too is that the review is crap. 
Total crap. For starters, there's nothing in it to indicate that Pekar 
read the book, or even the majority of Pynchon's works which he is 
slamming. He cites a blurb for _M&D_ (and another review), always a 
sure sign that the reviewer has taken a short cut. Compares page 
lengths, provides a shopping list of prior authors, throws in the 
obligatory Joyce, Nobel, "reclusiveness" and "archaic prose" mentions, 
and goes off into an irrelevant rant about Wynton Marsalis winning the 
first jazz-related Pulitzer (and seems totally oblivious to the fact 
that Pynchon has written quite a bit about some of the jazz greats of 
yesteryear, including at least one on Pekar's own list, offering 
instead the throwaway remark that Pynchon "write[s] about rock & 
roll".) Considering what Pekar has written more closely (probably more 
closely than it deserves, but hey, I've got half an hour to kill), it 
appears to me that he's read _Vineland_ only and is using that novel as 
his yardstick (the unfunny, "sophomoric" humour; the "cutesy names" and 
products he cites, apart from Benny Profane, whose name appears on p. 1 
of _V._, are all from _Vineland_.)

First rule for a book reviewer should be that they have read the book, 
neh?

As to a lot of people not liking etc, well, in my experience they don't 
get very far into the longer books (V., GR) before putting them down. I 
think it's correct to say that a lot of people don't like the *idea* of 
Pynchon's novels, but I suspect that there are very few, if any, who 
actually read *all* of GR, or *all* of V., or *all* of M&D, and 
considered it to be bloated or pointlessly complex or not that funny. I 
mean, why would you bother? I agree that it is a hard slog at first to 
get "into" those books (M&D less so than the other two, I'd argue.) And 
I do know of one person who read Lot 49 and didn't find it funny or 
enjoyable, I must admit.

I think both Lot 49 and Vineland (and to a lesser degree Slow Learner) 
were attempts to reach a broader audience via shorter, more 
"accessible" texts. Perhaps the attempts backfired, moreso in the case 
of Vineland -- Lot 49 left readers wanting more, and led nicely back to 
V. and forward to GR I think. But anyone who chances across Vineland 
isn't going to be all *that* inspired to pick up another of Pynchon's 
works, let alone persevere with it if they do. Still, Pekar basing his 
review of M&D, and his assessment of Pynchon's overall achievement and 
longevity, on either one of the two shorter novels -- particularly on 
Vineland, which is what he seems to have done -- is indefensible.

best

On 08/10/2005, at 7:50 AM, Will Layman wrote:

> I'm just being the voice of reason here.  A LOT OF PEOPLE don't like 
> Pynchon's writing.  MANY people think his novels are bloated, 
> pointlessly complex and not that funny.  Smart people can disagree.
>
>  I happen to love Pynchon's work.  I adore it and love it and want to 
> eat it for dinner.
>
>  But also dig Harvey, with his everyman, no-bullshit view of the 
> world.  And, you know what?  His dialogue is a lot more realistic and 
> nuanced than Pynchon's.
>
>  -- Will
>
>  On 10/7/05 5:43 PM, "Rcfchess at aol.com" <Rcfchess at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/07/2005 5:42:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
>> WillLayman at comcast.net writes:
>>> It goes without saying that I do not agree with Harvey.  But to be 
>>> fair, that critique was written from the classic Pekar point of view 
>>> and — while I think it reaches the wrong conclusions at every turn — 
>>> it should give us all a fair notion of how Pynchon is viewed by a 
>>> "regular guy" reader, and a smart one at that.
>> How smart can he be if he thinks that ALL of TRP is crap?!?
>>
>
>