/lit/ - Literature

>>17685496
Try M&D. GR coasts on quantity over quality for large stretches, which is also reflected in his prose; but the novel here is better than the sum of its parts. He is a much more polished writer in his bigger, later books, a proper writer one might say.

>>17685736
Thanks, anon. What did you think of Against the Day?

>>17685736
>GR coasts on quantity over quality for large stretches, which is also reflected in his prose

Am afraid friend I disagree, GR is a very dense work with some of the most compact prose i've ever read. Reading books about the context and checking guides helps beacuse you miss alot of the detail.

It's absolutly not quantity over quality, this is just plainly wrong and shows more your lack of reading comprehension whcih is fair enough most books require multiple rereads to really understand them.

>>17685496
>Extremely glad this is over.
Why didn't you just stop reading it? Just so you can give yourself some bullshit pat on the back for finishing some bullshit book?
Nice one anon. Hope you don't waste anymore time of your life and shit you didn't enjoy

>>17685857
I hate this bullshit pseudo-hedonist take on reading, like 'dude stop reading if you dont like it', as in you have to enjoy every fucking word you read. Are you going to drop a book if you don't like 3 or 4 paragraphs in a row even if you've been enjoying it until that moment? You read because you want to know what the BOOK (the entire book) has to offer. I'm sorry you're not humble enough to think that if the books doesn't entertain you at every moment you shoul drop it. fag

>>17685937
I'd enjoy tossing a phone book into your hands just to watch you frustratedly dedicate to finishing the damn thing

>>17685857
You need to go back.

>>17685946
good answer, not retarded at all, gj

>>17685968
Lost for words I see

>>17685790
>"Oh, you clearly didn't understand it,but its okay"
You sound really smug and mad. GR is filled with overwritten sections that contribute only tangentially (general problem with maximalism), and I have delved into the book; I don't know why you are so mad at me not liking it as much as you, surely you don't think its a perfect book. You can chop entire sections and the book won't be the less for that, especially the consistent and consistently oblique, hardly subtle pontificating. I have reread sections from it but it did not motivate me to read it entirely again.

>>17685789
Liked it. Too long, but really good.

>>17686026
>Am afraid friend I disagree
Hows this mad?
>especially the consistent and consistently oblique, hardly subtle pontificating
It's mostly about dicks, weed and tons of violent erotica. It's the opposit of this.

>>17686719
>your lack of reading comprehension whcih is fair enough most books require multiple rereads to really understand them.
Baseless assumption, didn't sound particularly chill.
>dicks, weed and violent erotica
Now you are being reductive. Your own previous reply applies here.

>>17686886
>Y-YOU'RE MAD!
this retard is trying so hard because he was too stupid to read a book written in English. He's too dumb to read words so now he's going to do this to COPE

>>17686886
Here's something more your speed dude!

>>17687027
Keep posing retards.

>>17687208
Thanks, I'll slid it right behind my pynchon where he rightfully belongs.

>>17685496
Felt the same way about V.
The Crying of Lot 49 was much more bearable due to it's shorter length and the fact that it follows one character throughout the whole book.

>>17687027
>can't spell opposite
>can't spell absolutely
>can't spell which
>buttmad somebody doesn't like the only author he pretends to have read.
This retard is trying so hard because he can't even spell, much less read. He is buttmad because he's on his period and probably hasn't even read the book he's defending. Now watch how he flounders clownishly with spelling as his butt gets blasted to mars.

>>17687208
This is unironically going to be remembered in 100 years unlike Pynchon desu. Collect your ass off the ground, bud.

>>17685937
This desu

>>17685496
>smug, disconnected style
uhh nope

>>17686026
sounds like you didn't get it..

>>17687627
Then give me what you got. Let's see it.

>>17687660
just go back to >>>/v/ already

>>17687713
Looks like you didn't get it either...
Sucks to be a poser.

>>17687727
yeah

>>17687583
Uhh cope.

>>17687484
Huh?

>>17685496
He knew far too much about German spook projects for the time. It’s better with a background in his SIGINT wartime service.

>>17687468
I'm not the first guy. I'm intelligent and nihilistic with a wicked sense of humor. I have a prominent tattoo of the trystero horn on my arm and mabel pines on my foot and I only come to /lit/ once a year to shit the place up.

>>17688731
*fart*
Uhh...what?!

>>17688766
>he sez

>>17688776
>sucks niggers

>>17685496
I don’t know I thought it was pretty neat

>>17686026
>overwritten sections that contribute only tangentially
>You can chop entire sections and the book won't be the less for that
col49 and IV has the same problems though IV has a stronger main thing going on

>>17689210
IV is pretty tight comparatively. It's not as ambitious though and a retread in some regards.

His style makes everything happening feel even more bizarre and mysterious, but Pynchon really does overstay his welcome. I'm fine with the references to random shit, they're interesting, but goddammit get to the point you faggot. Am in whatever chapter they're out somewhere and Slothrop gets paranoid about a rocket in the middle of fireworks and then he gets a boner or something like that. So, very early on.

I totally get this. Personally, i absolutely loved it. The humour is fantastic, the plotlines are all interesting, the prose was fascinating, the ideas were absolutely fucking bonkers and the ending was one of the best i've ever read.
I cant really blame you for not liking it though.

>>17685946
You're wrong but this reply is too based not to agree with

I just realized Slothrop is Lee Harvey Oswald

>>17690992
Ok this is epic

Anyone read Vineland? How is it?

>>17691108
For real though, Oswald was a bumbling nobody with cia fingerprints all over him. Skim this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt reads like Pynchon doesn’t it? He’s making a clear comparison.

>>17691220
Was there enough publicly known about Oswald at that time for a basis?

>>17690851
Why did you like the ending so much?

>>17691290
Well Pynchon was in the know about and an enthusiast of government intrigue, see pic related. For example in gr he talks about the money flow between Wall Street and ig farben. These things were not widely known and idk how Pynchon was privy to them. Perhaps he made some connections during his time at Boeing?

>>17691598
He was ex-military so he was probably able to witness some of the evolution of the military-industrial complex. Your comparison is interesting regardless of whether he actually intended it though, I was just curious.

>>17691598
Pynchon comes from a rich, aristocratic family, wouldn't be surprised if they had friends in high places to help him research the more confidential aspects of the book.

>>17691588
Because the implications of the novel's WW2 terror are put into the present, life and human potential can possibly be redeemed, and even if they aren't the suggestion pynchon makes to just expressing yourself with humour, meaning, beauty, or making human connections in a crumbling world can make it all okay even if only for our last second alive.

>>17685937
He clearly found the book a slog, why finish it? Ego

>>17693161
There's an enormous difference in reading for pleasure and approaching a book as a work of art, especially something as lauded and seminal as GR. You read to the end to 'see what all the fuss is about', in belief that there's something to be taken away from the text, or faith that the big picture will slot into place only when you can view the whole.

If you drop anything that doesn't tantalize you quickly enough you'll miss out on many great works of art.