/lit/ - Literature

Anyone?

c'mon, I know there are some Pynchon fans on /lit/

slow board

>>1611400
yeah sorry, I'm not used to slow boards.

Sorry man, it's my next Pynchon and I plan on doing it this year. Try talking to me in June.

>>1611406
Thanks man.

Budget a lot of time. It's worth a close read.

I read about 300 pages and then I stopped. I don't remember why, exactly. I got through Gravity's Rainbow fine.

All I Remember Now is that Every Other Word was Capitalized because Pynchon had a Hard-On for that Old Style.

>>1611415
Only nouns are capitalized and it's only for emphasis or clarification, but yeah I guess it kind of gets annoying.

But it's definitely very different from GR, not harder, just different.

>>1611421

How does capitalizing every noun emphasize or clarify anything?

>>1611421
No he capitalized nouns because that's how they were written back then when the novel takes place

>>1611438
Well, if you have a copy of the book, take another look.

Not every noun was capitalized, only some. And capitalization some times distinguishes a word that could be a noun/verb/adjective, indicating that it is a noun.

>>1611451
That was definitely a contributing factor, but some nouns are alternatingly uncapitalized/capitalized.

Soooo, no discussion of the content?

I liked Pugnax. He was cute.

>>1611499
That's ATD bro

>>1611521
I was pleased with the characterizations of Franklin and Washington. Cause for many lols, but also coherent within the narrative.

So am I literally the only one that's read this cover to cover?

>>1611575
LOLOLOL

literally
/lit/erally
literally...

.../lit/erally!!!
OMGFG SDASDASD AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>1611575
I only read and enjoyed "V" from start to finish. Pynchon is too stuffy for me

>>1611589
<

>>1611584
>stuffy
actually Pynchon is the opposite of stuffy. He's not particularly accessible, but he's certainly not stuffy.

On an unrelated note, I think V is slightly overrated, but it's still great.

>>1611575
I think it would be safe to assume you're not. I mean, it's not an obscure work you discovered by accident.

>>1611597
Two ways to interpret my statement:

a.) I was employing hyperbole.

b.) It was implied that I meant "am I the only one <on this board>..."

>>1611600
Well, assuming there aren't more than 5 or 6 users posting at /lit/ at any given moment I would say that is quite possible you're the only one who has read Mason & Dixon within that gorup. It's nothing to be surprised about tough.

>>1611613
Don't mean to be testy.

Maybe I'll bump this when a different timegroup comes on.

>>1611512
Whoops!

>>1611589
What the tripfag said.

But--wha? You thought "V." was stuffy? A song about nosejobs? A priest falling in love with a rat disciple in the sewers of NYC? Cocodrilo hunting? Irridescent spider monkeys?

I'd say Pynchon is erudite, at times, but surely not stuffy.

>>1611630
>wha?
nice touch

"Once you've cut into Esther..."

the lols never stop

>>1611622
no problem bro

we can shift this into a Pynchon general if you'd like.

>>1611630
>A priest falling in love with a rat disciple in the sewers of NYC
owned

>>1611712
In Mason and Dixon we have such frivolities as...

A French cook being pursued romantically by a mechanical duck.

A reverse werewolf who turns into a fop during the full moon.

A hemp plant that is large enough to support dwellings.

And many more!

Some of these are subjunctive, but still.

I've read it three times now. It never ceases to delight.

Is this better or worse than V? I read V and didnt feel particularly strongly either way about it. I've got Gravity's Rainbow on my shelf.

fuck yes Mason & Dixon.

My faovurite of his most definitely. Last 60 or so pages are some of the best I've ever read, so very affecting. I cannot wait to read it again this summer.

>>1613153
It's very different from V.

I'd say it's more emotional and conventionally interesting. It also has more narrative coherency. Try it out.

>>1613523
>>1613144
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU
I can't believe I missed you guys.
No one else had read it.

I'm going to bump so a different time zone can see.

I read it in between surreptitious glances at sorority girls' bikini-clad asses on the beach at spring break. Pretty engaging--I think it's a lot more "readable" than GR in spite of the old-school prose. It's probably my second favorite of his behind Against the Day.

>>1616070
I lol'd at the first part.

But yeah, I would agree that it's more accessible than GR. How would you say it compares in that compartment to ATD?

And I've yet to come up with a ranking list for Pynchon's novels.
I just can't.
I do think M&D might be his most emotional.

>>1616886

Against the Day has a more conventional narrative structure in most parts, and he backs off the arcane references somewhat as well. It's still Pynchon, but less Pynchonesque. That might seem like a bad thing, but getting that stuff out of the way lets his absolute mastery of the language come to front stage. The characters are less two-dimensional for the most part, too. It's also, I admit, a bit of a relief to (usually) know what's going on without having to re-read a bunch of times.

I've read all of Pynchon except Inherent Vice, and imo he's gotten progressively better, maybe with the exception of GR being better than Vineland. A lot of critics seemed to opine that ATD felt like a magnum opus for him, and since he's getting pretty old I'd say that seems likely.

>>1616930
Well, GR still gets more buzz than ATD or M&D with some saying that it's one of the 3 best novels of the 20th Century.

But I agree, they're both underrated and I had more of an attachment to the characters than I did in GR.

Inherent Vice is in no way close to the technical proficiency or thematic mastery of any of his previous works save maybe Vineland, but it's a fun read. Very, very different for Pynchon.

I agree with you about ATD btw. The plot is all over the place, but actually reading it isn't as difficult. I'm not sure if it's his magnum opus, although it is wonderful.

I'm sure if he'll turn anything else of great literary merit. That would be awesome if he wrote something god-tier right before he died or something (not that I want him to die lol).

>>1616964
sorry, accidentally used my /sp/ name

>>1616964
So wait, what are the other two greatest novels?

>>1617037
oh uhh, I guess Ulysses and then some shit novel that is really popular but actually sucks

>>1617043
Twilight?

>>1617079
I was thinking more along the lines of The Great Gatsby or Catch-22, but yeah Twilight would work if it was written in the 20th century.

>>1617043
judging by GR and ulysses, I suspect it to be Faulkner's as I lay dying or sound & fury

>>1617037

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

The first dozen entries on the critics' list imo are pretty damned accurate.

>>1617088
the reader's list is pretty darn retarded.
>>1617083
perhaps. but why not mix it up a bit?

>>1617088
Judging by the content of that readers list, I can't help but feel that /lit/ had a hand in its creation.

>>1617153

The Hubbard stuff is clearly due to Scientologists, and Rand has a nearly-as-cultish following, so it makes sense that the list skews that way.

>>1617164
makes sense