This week in pointless trivia.

[Markekohut]

Some of us are waiting for the Group Read to try to show aesthetic value. Stating it without pointing to the text is just more opinionizing. 

Some of us have even been told by some others that not much could be said or pointed to that could change a negative first reading. So it goes. 

And pointing to certain qualities can be like the famous duck/rabbit pic but value-loaded. As with the trailer, some saw a tone-perfect satire ( and more); others saw an amateurish video of unfunny attempts at juvenile jokes. 

It has always been thus with Readers. I expect no change. 

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 6, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Jochen
> 
> I've been offlist a long while, so I don't know if you're 'real' or one of Terrance's many personae, so bearing that in mind....
> 
> > A-and if life's to short not only to drink bad wine but also to find
> > out what sb. intended — well, why read bad books, then? 
> 
> It is not the case that I am reading the book because it's bad. Is that really what you think? Or are you just being childishly provocative? Either way, pathetic stuff..... I'm reading the book, expecting it to be good (because it's Pynchon), but I am finding, so far, that it's pretty bad.
> 
> I'm reading BE because it's a Pynchon book, and 100% of Pynchon's previous books have been well worth reading, to say the least. I'm a Pynchon fan, a Pynchon proselytizer, and I happen to think that he is overlooked and underrated by the mainstream lit crits. I also - based on what I see or 'know' of Pynchon, from his work - feel warmly towards Pynchon the person. All of which makes it less likely that I will dislike one of his books, but should, surely, also make me more inclined to be honest when I find one of his works to be sub par. The alternative - slavish devotion - does not do Pynchon (or his readers) any favours.
> 
> 
> >Why tell
> > anybody else that you ('ll probably) find it bad?
> 
> I've rejoined this list after a lengthy hiatus, because *there is a new Pynchon book* and thus I am interested in what's being said about it. To be honest, I don't think you are in any position to question either my views or why I choose to share them here. We all have an equal right to air our thoughts.
> 
> >Without another
> > reason than that you make excuses not to read it? (You should tell
> > that to your barber or your psychologist.)
> 
> You should consider just how far you want to push your gratuitous needling of someone you know nothing about. 
> 
> > show a bad sentence, a bad paragraph or only a bad chapter and state
> > your reasons why they are bad.
> 
> Ha! Where to start? Actually picking out a bad sentence or paragraph from BE, while easily done, would be unfair: it's the cumulative effect that makes me consider the book a dud, not any one passage. And of course we can all argue until we're blue in the face over what constitutes 'bad'.
> 
> Given that I was issued with a review copy of BE, on the understanding that I would most likely, at some stage, turn in some sort of 'review', you can be reasonably certain that I will have to get into details about why I think the book is bad. I'm not necessarily interested in doing that here, and certainly don't feel, from what I've seen from you so far, that I would generate a worthwhile response from you.
> 
> I asked people to suggest facets of the book that might be used to argue against my view. Haven't seen any so far....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131006/ab660fd1/attachment.html>