MICHIKO KAKUTANI

[Carvill, John]

I basically disagree. But even if we did agree that an editor is required, who actually *could* edit Pynchon?

I think people say ATD needed an editor because it's too big and baggy and unruly and full of longeurs, dead ends etc. I loved th ebook, but I did find certain sections frustrating. But I don't think it's the case that an editor could simply trim out all those bits which seem supefluous, I don't think it works like that. You sort of have to have the baggy bits along with the brilliant bits. It's like that medical marijuana some people take for glauacoma: doctors say you can't produce a special brand of medicinal grass that helps your eyes but doesn't get you high: whatever it is that helps your eyes is inseperable from the THC that gets you stoned. I reckon ATD (and other Pynchon books) is like that. You have to take the rough with  the smooth.

People say the Beatles' White Album should have been trimmed down to make just one fantastic single album. This is, of course, bullshit.


________________________________________
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf Of David Morris

I so agree with this.  Pynchon needs a strong editor (BTW so could your posts, Nushra), and AGTD (I also like this phonetic "acronym") is the prime example of this need.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Nushra MohamedKhan <nushramkhan at gmail.com> wrote:
 AGTD is great, but man could it be improved if he took out some 300-odd pages and squared it up took out a couple few stupid plot lines and a  couplefew dozen chanracters