The flattened American landscape of minor writers

[malignd at aol.com]

I agree narrow, but understandable if one simply factors in Manhattan 
(and, tangentially, the New Yorker), which is the obvious common 
denominator.  Even Bellow, who is generally associated with Chicago, 
was part of the Partisan Review group and, in any case, hard to ignore 
Bellow.

Not defending it.

<<I agree with what you say/and demonstrate John but I think its pretty 
narrow minded to exclusively name drop writers of a certain affinity 
(in this case white, male straight, jewish for most part) as the best 
of the best of post-war American fiction.>>


-----Original Message-----
From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
To: Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com>
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org; gentle_family at btinternet.com
Sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:02 pm
Subject: Re: The flattened American landscape of minor writers






I agree with what you say/and demonstrate John but I think its pretty
narrow minded to exclusively name drop writers of a certain affinity
(in this case white, male straight, jewish for most part) as the best
of the best of post-war American fiction.

rich


On 2/25/09, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why do these slavering articles on Updike (and Roth) in the English
>>> press always discount, in fact often fail entirely to mention, 
Pynchon?
>
>>Because they're not about him? And he's not dead yet?
>>David Gentle
>
>
> Deep, deep sigh.
>
> Assuming you're not just being rude, but are genuinely missing my 
point,
> I'll explain one more time what I meant. When the press - and I am 
talking
> mainly about the English press, because even factoring in teh 
internet,
> living in England you tend to read teh English press most, and yeah I 
know
> the McEwan article wasn't in teh English press but he is an English 
writer -
> when the press run an article on one of the Big Beasts of post-war 
American
> literature, be they alive or dead, they tend to mention that 
particular
> writer's 'peers' or 'contemporaries', yeah? So, for instance, a Roth 
profile
> will tend to mention Updike, Bellow, etc. But they often omit Pynchon.
>
> Here's an example of what I had in mind, from the English press, 
recently
> (well, late last year):
>
> 'The story of my lives'
> by Robert McCrum
> The Observer, 21 September 2008
>
> "From Portnoy's Complaint to American Pastoral, Philip Roth's 
jostling alter
> egos have provided the literary world with some of the great 
masterpieces of
> the past half-century. Here, as he celebrates his 75th birthday, the
> novelist talks to Robert McCrum about losing friends, living alone 
and why
> the next book will be his last"
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/21/philiproth.fiction
>
> This article mentions Norman Mailer, JD Salinger, Updike, Saul 
Bellow, etc.
> But not Pynchon.
>
>
>
> Here's another Guardian article, the title says it all really:
>
> 'Updike was good, but Roth is the greatest'
>
> 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/feb/03/updike-roth-books
>
>
>
> Here's another Roth profile, form the Independent, which mentions 
Updike and
> Bellow, but not Pynchon:
>
> 
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/philip-roth-america-the-dutiful-926481.html
>
>
> See the pattern? Ok so my point really was that I'm often frustrated 
to see
> these other writers (great though they are) mentioned but Pynchon 
ignored.
> That's all. Not any kind of big contenhtious argument being put 
forward,
> just a little jocular 'Updike Schmupdike! What about Thomas Pynchon?'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail.
> 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Access_022009
>