BlogCritics Review of Inherent Vice

[Campbel Morgan]

Yeah, right, I was just picking on it. It's not any good ...I agree
with Paul, we will need to wait and read some of the standards later
on (NYRB ...).   I think you are wrong about the grammar and quote
stuff. He doesn't paraphrase, he quotes and he gets it wrong; he
should not, in quotation marks, drop a word the text quoted without
some indication that he has in fact changed the original.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM, David Morris<fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you're picking nits because you don't like the thesis *you say* he
> promotes: "to argue" that all of Pynchon's works following GR don't measure
> up [to GR] (which I think is undeniably true).
>
>   He paraphrases the GR opener, only to keep the "quote" grammatically in
> line with his sentence.  He actually praises IV, while noting that it hasn't
> the gravitas of GR, something any reviewer of IV would be required to
> state.  And he notes that while the jury regarding MD and AtD may still be
> out (notably he doesn't include VL), he thinks it is clear that IV won't
> help any judgement in favor of either in history's eyes.
> David Morris
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Campbel Morgan <campbelmorgan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> his purpose is to argue that GR was Pynchon's masterwork and his latest,
>> if not everything he's writtem after GR, doesn't measure up. Well, call me
>> Ahab, but I think he needs to get that opening line right.
>>
>> > http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-inherent-vice-by-thomas
>