a look at the James Wood AtD review - part 2 (couple spoilers)

[David Morris]

ATD seems just plain tired compared to GR.  GR is  much more
experimental (and thus that much less accessible).  And much more
intensely felt, because, I think TRP was passionately exploring the
limits of the new form of fiction he was then pioneering. When Woods
complains about the sameness of descriptions I understand what he
means.  I'm sorry to say that ATD feels almost Pynchon-formulaic at
times.

I don't agree with Wood's criticism of GR in his Richardson/Fielding
framework because I seriously do feel for the feelings of many of GR's
characters, and I never felt they were immune from consequences.  The
tragic at least equals the comic in GR.  And when Pynchon employs his
rich prose it doesn't seem calculated merely to propel the reader past
the next few pages, as it does seem to me in ATD.

I think ATD is good, on the whole, but I think GR is a masterpiece.

David Morris

On 7/9/07, mikebailey at speakeasy.net <mikebailey at speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> laura kelber wrote
>
> > Thanks for your thoughtful dissection of the Woods review (which I haven't actually read yet). I think what you say in point "n" is the real gist of his review: nothing in the book particularly grabbed him. I think we all have our favorite sections in TRP's books. For me, they came fast and furious in GR (and V, COL49 and M&D) but were much sparser in VL and ATD. So I can sympathize with reviewers who are less than enthralled with ATD.
>
> Is it because of the opposite reason - not enough dangerous radicalism?