Munro vs Pynchon on Kavalevsky

[rich]

my problem with her is she's become so moralistic in her critiques.
she would've dissed folks like faulkner


sorry for flurry of missives this morning--that big cup of joe is
working its magic

rich

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> She has found novels after perceived bad books by such as Updike and Roth to be very good...
>
> Something admirable about her among a few things: she will read earlier works by a writer she might be reviewing for the first time.
>
> I oten enough disagree with her. I respect her though, a lot. I may be in a minority.
>
> --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>
>> From: Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>
>> Subject: RE: Munro vs Pynchon on Kavalevsky
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 7:26 AM
>>
>> Keeps her flexible as a critic.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:42:09 -0500
>> > Subject: Re: Munro vs Pynchon on Kavalevsky
>> > From: rpmahnke at gmail.com
>> > To: mackin.paul at verizon.net;
>> pynchon-l at waste.org
>> >
>> > Has Michiko Kakutani ever said, this is an author's
>> best work? It
>> > seems to me that she's always criticizing a recent
>> effort as not as
>> > good as an author's earlier works.
>> >
>> > On 12/4/09, Paul Mackin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/books/30book.html?_r=1&ref=books
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>