/lit/ - Literature

>>7351301
Why shouldn't you?

RE-read!

>>7351304
I've never read any Pynchon. Have no clue what to expect.

>>7351301
no, reading is stupid

>>7351311

Read The Crying of Lot 49 and V. first

>>7351301
I tried reading it, and there's this one part, and I was imagining like this abandoned train hub with rusted iron spires thrust into a gray, tumultuous sky... then it turned out he was describing a bed? So you know. There's that.

>>7351311
Consider reading one of Pynchon's shorter novels, like Crying of Lot 49 or Inherent Vice, first. The prose in Gravity's Rainbow can be intimidating if you're completely new to it.

>>7351328
I normally only read one book per author.

>>7351334
>I normally only read one book per author.

>>7351343
It's just the thing I do, learn to live with it.

>>7351349
If you're seriously only going to read one, it should definitely be Gravity's Rainbow or maybe V.

>>7351349
Don't listen to >>7351358

Mason & Dixon is the only truly worthwhile book by Pynchon.

>>7351349
>willfully being a plebeian

I mean sure if you want

>>7351399
Au contraire, mon cheri ;)

>>7351301
That Asian is a qt

>>7351422
It's all yours, my friend. :^)

>>7351334
Please be a troll

>>7351546
That way I read a lot of authors. Get it?

You should definitely read it. i couldnt believe i was reading high literature the whole time i was reading gravitys rainbow. i was like, THIS is what literary critics think is good? now this i can get down with lol. it was like an episode of tim and eric but somehow even more random and absurd. and the names of the characters were insane. love it, and his other books too. also if you want a wild take on history, pick up mason and dixon. it's history, but with a surreal twist. there's a guy named cherrycoke, for instance, and that's just the beginning. but you're gonna blow your top when you read this thing, so i wont spoil all the other surprises. lets just say things dont quite transpire exactly according to the dusty old history books.... things get a little.... weird. (talking dog) ok ok no more. lol couldnt resist. happy reading.

>>7351600
:)

>>7351600
please don't let this be copypasta

>>7351579
couldn't you just read a lot of authors anyway? I don't see why you need to limit yourself.

>>7351600
Basically why Pinecone is a DUDE WEED LMAO author

>>7351697
It takes time to read a book

>>7351652
It isn't apparently.

>>7351328
Lot 49 is boring and pointless as fuck just like Gravity's Rainbow.

>>7351329
he was describing a ruined urban environment, but it turns out the character was dreaming it and wakes up. so it's both

>>7351724
>>7351700
>>7351600

Fuck off, leave /lit/, kill yourselves, learn how to read &c

>>7351334

Oh, then don't bother

You can't possibly know enough literature to make the book worth it

>>7351755
Elaborate, what do you mean?

>>7351761

You've only read at most one work from any given major literary talent

Aka you don't know your shit

you've never seen an author develop over time, you've never traced historical developments between works chronologically, between authors as they develop and their culture develops

>>7351763
How will that prevent me from enjoying Gravity's Rainbow

>you've never
I think you have bad reading comprehension

>>7351768

I'm speaking colloquially

Ostensibly it prevents you from fully enjoying most of what you read, lacking an inordinate degree of context. really it doesn't matter and you can personally do whatever you choose

>>7351772
You're just defending your own stale habits.

49 → V. → GR → M&D

Everyone is really shitting on OP because he decided to shake things up and only read one book per author, but is that really such a bad idea? I'm going to give it a shot, but take it 2 steps further. From now on I will only read 1 chapter from 1 book for every author.
And if you think this is stupid, you are just defending your own stale habits.

This is the future of reading.

>>7351802
It's fine reading multiple books from the same author. It doesn't make you somehow inferior.

>>7351777

My apologies, I didn't realize people thought of accurate, close reading of literary work as 'stale'

GR ← V. ← 49

>>7351763
>you've never seen an author develop over time, you've never traced historical developments between works chronologically, between authors as they develop and their culture develops

How is that of ANY importance if I'm not an english major?

>>7351833
Only professors and children read like that.

>>7351840
>>7351842

I'm personally into the study of literature

If you're in it for the kicks I suggest Stephen King or Anne Rice

>>7351850
Wow you have pretty, uh, interesting, taste.

>>7351704
This is poor reasoning for a poor viewpoint.

If you are only reading one book per author because there's too little time and to many books, then you've got the wrong parameters for what you read.
By the way what reading level would you guys say would it take to read and understand Gravity's Rainbow?

>>7351880
>then you've got the wrong parameters for what you read.
Huh?

>>7351880
Level 6

Yes. Now more than ever. You needn't look beyond today's headlines to see the significance of Gravity's Rainbow. Closed loop violence will be the end of us.

>>7351868
>falling for a bait this obvious.

>>7351880
Time yourself reading (in this order) the Iliad, the Odyssey, Shakepeare's corpus, and Joyce's oeuvre. You are allowed 10 minutes every 6 hours for bathroom and eating breaks. You are allowed to sleep but the clock does not stop. If you can complete these in less than 72 hours total, you are ready.

>>7351917
This guy doesn't mess around.

>>7351330
i started with inherent vice and found it a good first read. went on to vineland, crying lot of 49 then GR. going to read V next.

>>7351600
I absolutely love this meme.

>>7351700

>>7351311
The difficulty of GR is an over-rated meme. GR was the first Pynchon that I read and got through it just fine, thoroughly enjoying it. It just clicks with some people, and others just see it as a literary trainwreck.