Right off the top, let's address the bottom line vis-à-vis these persistent Pynchonesque trumours — appropriately originating, apparently, in an entry first sighted on the William Gaddis Mailing List — surrounding the alleged all-brand-spangly-new psychedelic (et noir!) T. P. novel, slated, fingers crossed, for 2009 release; thus, the above link's for bit-champing Ed Champion (among others) who, not unlike another frisky filly near you, can hardly stand the freezerly winter wait; but, the Original OneOf, Tim Ware, got the word off Stephen Moore who got the word off someone who actually knows T. P. . . . and? Well, it was more than one word; but, according to the writerly gripe-Vineland, here are the words, M'Dear Inq.uears:
"The rep told me it's around 400 pages, and is a kind of noir detective story set in the 1960s, with lots of psychedelia as background. How groovy is that!"
Thus, believe at your own risk; but, the argumentations forwarded by Kellogg certainly seem to hold (heavy) water, if nothing else. Ware's 'site features the various ingedients of the scoop and quite the ladling on the essential Nutz 'n' Boltz Duck* Soup (thanks to the aforementioned fellow Pynchonian Kellogg in the 3 October issue of The LA Times). Oh, man; oh, boy! Edjoy!
* You had to be there, kinda, on the dividing line between Mason & Dixon :)
Judith: It was confirmed by David Ulin at the Times. I've likewise confirmed it with a few sources, but held off on a post because this was old news by then.
ReplyDeleteDamn those nurses. They tell you stupid stuff and fail to deliver the new news when it's new news. Now, of course, it *is* new news here; but, it's old news there; so, it's fair-to-magnificent news for yours truly and I am glad it is more than a trumour. Thank you for clearing this up; now, I shall go and see what happend next @ edrants. Someone should tell Tim Ware . . . but, not moi; I've no inclination to return to getting back into his hair :). I turned up missing @ Hallowe'en for a reason! Oh, gawd, 2009 sounds so far away . . .
ReplyDelete