ATD Galley Timing (was Re: Questions ..)

[Mark Kohut]

I know a Pynchon 'amatuer expert' who received galleys for M & D and ATD.
ATD was much later to him.    Don't know about the earlier Pynchons....

Do know that manuscript copies of Gravity's Rainbow circulated among reprint
houses and many others under the title Mindless Pleasures before
galleys and books of GR....



On 12/18/06, davemarc <davemarc at panix.com> wrote:
>
>  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 <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> *To:* Tore Rye Andersen <torerye at hotmail.com>
> *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
>
>


-- 
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/20061218/7bcb8c03/attachment.html>