Back to our regularly scheduled novelist.

[Mark Kohut]

Laura,

No, I think Inherent Vice was 'surely'---[don't call me shirley]--started in the 60s (conceptually) and 70s (physically). 

I think that about AtD, as I've repeated.

We have TRPs words about his lifelong writing projects from that letter to his agent back in the day.

Hearing that TRP was 'correcting' proof copies of AtD up until he had to let it go, I think that he is the kind of perfectionist and cumulatively maturer writer who has been 'writing', refining, 'correcting' "Inherent Vice" since then, probably.

Mark


--- On Sun, 11/30/08, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Back to our regularly scheduled novelist.
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 1:52 AM
> I'd be inclined to read VL first, since it's sort of
> a sequel to ATD (Traverse family-wise), followed by COL49,
> which seems closer to what IV promises to be about (am I the
> only one who thinks IV was written back in the  late
> 60s-early 70s, its title being a self-referential joke about
> 
> poor-quality items prone to decay?).
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Robin Landseadel
> <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> >Sent: Nov 30, 2008 1:32 AM
> >To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >Subject: Re: Back to our regularly scheduled novelist.
> >
> >Uh, er, yeah [?]
> >
> >Does this mean you'd rather do "V." next?
> >
> >And can we have a show of hands?
> >
> >On Nov 29, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Michael Bailey wrote:
> >
> >> if we did those 2 before,
> >> and then did IV
> >> it would only be natural to progress from IV to V
> wouldn't it?
> >>
> >> just sayin'
> >