/lit/ - Literature

I love threads where people read five pages of a book and make sweeping declarations about it being complete trash.
Pynchon is not very hard to read. There's a lot of depth you can dig into, but even in GR 80-90% of it is written like pic related. Imagine being filtered by this.

>>19716504
This type of nonsense gets posted by filtered retards who give up in the first chapter but pretend they kept going all the time, and I always respond with this page.
The kind of person who can read pic related and use words like "gruelling" and "pretentious" to describe it can only be too dumb for their opinions to be worth listening to.

>>19444086
I have a special place in my heart for Vonnegut, but you're making the mistake of trying to out-contrarian the contrarians.
Pynchon is in a whole other league. If you think his appeal is some impossibly dense pomo mystique where he hides behind length and "extremely niche vocabulary," you haven't read him.
In fact, I get the impression that almost all the harsher criticism on this board of Pynchon is from people who just don't read his books. That's the only explanation for how the complaints are so commonly that he's pretentious or obscurantist or whatever. Really? THIS Pynchon, right here, who wrote this page?

>>18635970
Absolutely retarded opinion.
Imagine reading something like pic related and accusing the author of "posturing." You either haven't read any of those three or you read at a middle school level.

>>18312968
How do you read something like this and accuse the author of being an obscurantist? If you genuinely can't parse this, what books are the right level of difficulty for you? Are you just too dumb to read anything beyond YA?