Well I just reread Vineland and the news is still bad...

[Henry Winkler]

I had the same reaction as Ray to AtD. Boring. Unlike GR, AtD was a grind.
It took months to read because the writing was overripe and there was no
real plot to give narrative tension. But what I was wondering, though, is
why the decline in quality after GR? It's interesting to look at the
publication dates of Pynchon's books:

V..................1963
CL49.............1966
GR................1973
Vineland........1990
M+D..............1997
AtD............... 2006

Note the famous or notorious 17 year gap between GR and Vineland. WTF
happened during those years people? We may never know, but one thing we do
know is that the quality of Pynchon's books declined after that time.

Fonzi

On 6/13/07, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any doubt that GR is superior to all other of
> Pynchon's books.  It is more dense, more intense, more poetic, much
> more obscure and more experimental.  I think it was both a product of
> its time and of Pynchon's prime.  Also, I'm sure he's not smoking as
> much dope or dropping as much acid as he was back then.
>
> AtD doesn't suck, and mediocre Pynchon is still superior to most
> other's best.  But I still think Vineland was a big stinker.
>
> David Morris
>
> On 6/12/07, Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:05 PM, robinlandseadel at comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > >  what is it that makes GR superior to AtD?
> >
> > My sneaking suspicion is that GR ISN'T really superior to AtD, or isn't
> THAT much superior.
> >
> > Our disappointment with the latest book may be mostly a product of the
> passage of time.  Thirty five years ago Pynchon's innovative approach to
> fiction writing was still fresh.   It no longer is.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070613/a1425d4d/attachment.html>