Slate-d

[jbor at bigpond.com]

N.B. also -- "(For the record, Penguin Press's publicity chief disavows 
all knowledge of the blurb .... )"

I'm not buying that "parody" argument either. As a blurb, it's 
ordinary. Bad, in fact. The comparison with the M&D flap blurb nailed 
it.

But at least now it looks like it's a fake bad blurb -- to go into the 
Hoaxers' Scrapbook alongside the fake bad MySpace log, the fake bad 
photo, the fake bad interview, the fake bad Unabomber rumour, and the 
fake bad crop of letters to the editor (if only we could write Vineland 
off as a fake bad book, eh? ... just joking, retract your claws). So 
the issue becomes whether it's an accurate bad blurb. That's still a 
very real possibility, but it will also raise a whole bunch of other 
questions.

Does it occur to anyone else that someone out there really has it in 
for TRP, and is intent on doing as much damage to his reputation as 
possible with all this crap?

best

On 20/07/2006, at 2:53 PM, Erik T. Burns wrote:

> http://www.slate.com/id/2146152/?nav=ais
>
> "...the scholars and nuts who compulsively post to the pynchon-l
> mailing list..."
>
> etb
>