Bleeding Edge - A Rolling Assessment

[Markekohut]

There hasn't been an ambitious book that has lasted that hasn't gotten ' mixed reviews'. The reviewing establishment is culturally loaded, if not what we might call cowardly corrupt in some circles. see The Recognitions.

It is also the case that books that don't last get mixed reviews too. I have a paradoxical maxim: if the praise is unanimous, the book won't last. If the reviews are mixed, there is a chance it is
a real classic. 

In the case of Pynchon, the same critics are trotted out or writers who are felt to be sympathetic-minded. (With Lethem escorting PKD into the L of America, one sees that choice by the new editor of the NYTBR. That said, I did really like the snippets of Lethem's review that has crossed my ken so far. Haven't read it all)  It was, as is said, a " selling" review. 

Although Meg Wolitzer could hardly ever influence a book-reading decision of mine--nor, I presume to say,  most on this list--the NPR review that I heard I liked for having its negatives--and for being by a woman as almost an everywoman. ( Kakutani, Kellogg aren't that that in their reviewing)

It takes some guts for reviewers, readers, old Pynchon fans to diss this one. 

I grew on me a lot upon reflection and some rereading. My way. But, as with the writers I consider among the best, I usually like even their more minor works. As with You-Name-Them, they are the best because their vision and skills are " always" present somewhere. Usually, in my opinion. (Yes, that is why I put scare quotes on " always" so you can bring on the exceptions. )

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 24, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. Vineland really should not be catergorised alongside IV, except in the sense that IV could maybe be seen as Vineland's little brother. VL suffered greatly, it seems, from the fact that it followed so long after GR and was thus seen as a let-down. I have always felt there was (and continues to be) a political dimension to VL's reception too: it was overtly Left-wing, and some Pynchon fans kid themselves that his work doesn't unmistakably display a left-leaning political bias. Anyway, people interpreted the disappointment of VL as evidence that Pynchon had "lost it", burned out with too much dope and junk culture. But then of course M&D wiped such suggestions off the map. ATD again got 'mixed' reviews - some reviewers slated it despite admitting they hadn't even read it all!
> 
> IV also, I felt, got unfairly pigeonholed as 'Pynchon Lite'. Yes, in some ways you could look on it as such, but it wasn't the disposable piece of meaningless fluff some too it for - even some on this list (perish the thought).
> 
> BE seems to me, so far, almost like a further watering down of IV, in literary terms. VL was actually pretty strong stuff, quality-wise. So if IV is VL diluted somewhat, BE is even less concentrated and I think it's too thin. It's like a martini made with 9 parts vermouth.
> 
> 
> 
> From: tyronemullet at hotmail.com
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: RE: Bleeding Edge - A Rolling Assessment
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:57:52 -0700
> 
> I only read a few pages of BE so far and so can’t say too much about it. As I already stated though, my initial impression was of continual and exhausting frantic conversations. I’ll pick it back up and read it at some future time. It’s not uncommon to see BE, IV, & VL spoken of together (maybe CoL49 too, though it's quite different), as P.’s "lesser" works. I’ve always thought though that VL is in a somewhat different category. In my opinion, with VL P. found a fine balance between his "big" books and his lighter ones.
> Steve Maas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130924/b600fcb0/attachment.html>