/lit/ - Literature

>>16981797
If you've read through V. then making your way through Gravity's Rainbow should be no problem

A really good book

>>16981797
How was V., anon? I've only read The Crying of Lot 49 and it's next on my list

>>16981830
The writing is not as good but the subject matter is better.

>>16981797
Lots and lots of sex.

>>16981797
Just read it, you'll love it!
>>16981830
V. is very strong. Some of his best writing in there. Very proto-GR

>>16981797
It's essentially a tripped out desperate last cry on behalf of the failed counterculture. Probably the best 20th century literature had to offer, no joke, memes aside.

I’ve ready Inherent Vice and The Crying of Lot 49. I thought IV was significantly better than Lot 49 because it didn’t drag at parts. What Pynchon book should I read next?

I have two extra copies of Gravity's Rainbow hanging around, anyone want to buy them? One is pic related and the other is the Penguin paperback with the original cover. Both in "Good" condition

>>16982850
Just do V then GR. Not even Pynchon is keen on Lot 49.

>>16982850
Read V. next, but IMO 49 is better than IV. Or you can read Gravity's Rainbow. I'm a big V. fan so I always recommend starting at the beginning, but you can go straight into GR if you want, you'll be about as prepared as you can be

>>16982858
Yeah he's wrong though. It's great. I have the strong feeling that when he wrote the comment that he wasn't partial to it that he was just mad that he didn't expand upon his ideas for 600+ pages like he did in V. and Gravity's Rainbow

>>16981797
Can I just skip V and TCoL and just read GR and M&D?

>>16983219
Technically yeah, but V and 49 are such good books themselves, and it’s an immense thrill seeing how Pynchon evolves from them into GR. So I wouldn’t recommend it.

>>16981797
Fascinating, compelling, moving, frustrating, opaque, enlightening, upsetting, etc.

Read and enjoy without burdening yourself to understand it all. Read sympathetically and allow yourself to weep at unexpected appearances of harmonicas.

>>16983219
You can but you shouldn't

>>16983219
Yeah. V. and lot 49 are starters for GR. Everything he does in them is done better in GR

>>16983364
Agreed and that's saying something because V. and 49 are both fantastic

>>16982876
He wrote that in '84. He only had 3 books out at the time and I can see him liking GR and V. over it.

>>16983917
Yeah that's what I just fucking said

>>16984677
You said he had a strong feeling. I backed it up with fact

>>16985541
*You had a strong feeling

>>16983219
You can, but they are definitely good reads. If you've read difficult stuff (be it either more "pomo
stuff like IJ or something by Gaddis, some modernist stuff a la Ulysses, or just a longer more complex novel like maybe Moby Dick) then you don't need an intro into a difficult book. It's really only needed if you want to see Pynch's evolution as a writer, get used to his style, and some characters from V. show up I think in GR as mostly minor characters so you'll just miss that connection, though that isn't that big of a deal. If 49 and V. don't interest you then you can read GR and M&D and maybe go back if you like those enough, but they do serve as good testers I suppose for his later works. Bu' doo whateva mayn iss yo' laf.

>>16982858
If you go back and read the intro to Slow Learner, his "attack" on Lot 49 seems more like a sly comment than any kind of serious criticism, i.e., I think he was just joking when he said that

>>16981797
poopy