ATD Galley Timing (was Re: Questions ..)

[davemarc]

I have to say I have my doubts about the ATD galleys coming later than those for any other Pynchon novel. Which isn't to say that diligent (and less diligent) reviewers wouldn't have an awful time grappling with ATD in time to review it around the on-sale date. Also, the "time of galley distribution vs. density of book factor" might be the worst so far.

Does anyone have any hard data on this? I might have a little, but I can't look for it now.

d.


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Kohut 
  To: Tore Rye Andersen 
  Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:07 PM
  Subject: Re: Questions ..


  Tore Rye Andersen,

  I work in publishing circles and learned this about ATD:. The galleys which reviewers get to read were much later to them than for any other Pynchon novel, it seems. Around a month or so before pub date and it is the longest novel as is known. Most galleys go to potential reviewers at least 3 months ahead of pub date, often more for "long lead' vehicles for important books. 

  So, reviews that will be the start of critical understanding of ATD have been fewer, perhaps, as you mention.



  Mark


   
  On 12/16/06, Tore Rye Andersen <torerye at hotmail.com > wrote: 
    Michel:
    >Criticism is a dialogue.  A review is a monologue.

    >From an overlapping angle: A review is intended for those who have not read 
    a book, to assist them in deciding whether to do so.

    A-and Monte:
    >>Criticism is intended for those who have read it, to engage them in
    >>dialogue
    about what they found there.

    >>Often enough, of course, reviews take the place of criticism for readers 
    >>who
    seek not further enagagement but ready-made opinions of what they have read
    (or even of what they haven't).

    Yes, these would certainly seem to be the archetypes of reviews and
    criticism, but the lines between the two are often quite fluid indeed. I've 
    often - far, far too often - read monological rants disguising themselves as
    'criticism'; rants where the author of the article is more interested in
    positioning him- or herself vis-a-vis certain predominant theories than in 
    actually trying to understand what the damn object of analysis is in fact
    trying to say. Such poor excuses for criticism are in my opinion at least as
    undiscriminating as the hastily typed review. In an ideal world, criticism 
    *is* a dialogue, but in reality criticism is all too often a series of
    alternating monologues, where the authors aren't interested in what their
    colleagues or their common topic have to say.

    I will certainly also agree that reviews are mostly monologues/ready-made 
    opinions, but we shouldn't forget those brilliant reviews which *are* in
    fact foundations for the criticism to follow. We haven't really seen any of
    those reviews with AtD. Reviewers simply weren't given enough time with the 
    book, so the fault is as much Penguin Press' as the reviewers, IMO. There
    have been some good, long reviews of the novel, notably by John Leonard and
    Liesl Schillinger, but those reviews were mostly good because they were not 
    stupid, if that makes any sense: they got the gist of what the novel was
    actually about and discussed a few imporatnt topics, but despite being
    clever and well-written, I don't expect them to be foundations for future 
    criticism of AtD: The reviewers simply didn't have enough time to sit down
    and map out a larger picture of AtD's position in Pynchon's oeuvre, or its
    position in modern American literature.
    Those kinds of reviews do exist, though, and we don't have to look far to 
    find them: Richard Poirier's review of GR in Saturday Review of the Arts,
    published merely five days after GR, is an excellent example of a review
    which set the tone for much of the early criticism of the novel. It is 
    really an astounding review, but as Gerald Howard wrote in his essay in Book
    Forum, Poirier also had plenty of time to prepare it. Another brilliant
    review is Louis Menand's review of M&D, which also seems to have influenced 
    much subesequent criticism. Both reviews demonstrate the once in a while
    reviews really can be precursors for the later criticism - such reviews are
    much too rare, though, and in the case of AtD so far unmaterialized. 

    _________________________________________________________________
    Vælg selv hvordan du vil kommunikere - skrift, tale, video eller billeder
    med MSN Messenger:   http://messenger.msn.dk/   - her kan du det hele





  -- 
  Mark Kohut (& Associates)
  63 Western Ave.
  Jersey City, NJ 07307
  646-519-1956
  201-795-9388 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20061218/4e7befab/attachment.html>