Inherent Vice discussion

[Anonymous No.14002287]

I'm reading Inherent Vice right now, somewhere around half-way through and thought it might be nice to have a discussion about it or Pynchon in general. This is my first book by him and I have to admit at the outset - I'm not too impressed. If I were to describe it by one word, so far that privilege would befall the word "mediocre". While I am intrigued by the general story (which I also consider to not be the only focus of the book), a lot of other things just fall flat - the characters especially. Doc seems to me like a caricature of every high hippie ever mentioned and seen on this planet, and every other supporting character even more so, up to the point of absurdity. It's humorous at times, but it's also extremely vulgar. Its style is beautiful for more than 10 pages, but then divulges into pointless meandering and referencing the culture and products of the time. The non-pot dialogue is pretty fun to read, but the "pot dialogue" is overwhelming to the point of, well, extreme vulgarity and boredom.
Did I make a mistake by having this as my first Pynchon novel? What are your thoughts on it? What's your favorite novel by him and what do you recommend I read next?

[Anonymous No.14002299]

Inherent Vice is probably the most lowbrow and accessible novel, although I still think it stands on its own merits -- 'vulgarity' is something Pynchon loves a lot, so you're just going to need to get use to it.
I don't think it's a mistake for your first Pynchon, it was mine too, but it has some interesting insights into his life, being presumably more autobiographical than his other novels, so you might want to keep it in your mind if you continue to read his earlier works.
Characters are never Pynch's strong point, don't try and find some deep interpersonal character-driven stories, look for little episodes strong together and delve into how they connect to each other, further the plot, and what they mean in the grand scheme of things.
Bleeding Edge is his most similar to IV, so if you change your mind on it continue with that.

[Anonymous No.14002447]

[Anonymous No.14003195]

>>14002299
What's your favorite work of his?

[Anonymous No.14003244]

>>14002287
>This is my first book by him and I have to admit at the outset - I'm not too impressed.
It's his potboilerest book. Even Vineland, which is commonly regarded as his worst, was more earnest (being bad mostly due to excess fluff clogging up the good bits; I remember reading something similar about either Bleeding Edge or Against the Day).
>Its style is beautiful for more than 10 pages, but then divulges into pointless meandering and referencing the culture and products of the time.
Although, like I just said, he sometimes does this overmuch, I liked it in Inherent Vice because there was a real sense of the 60s' grounding in decades prior, in the music and film of the 50s and 40s. Most 60s fiction fails to properly engage with that. Digressiveness is also a standard trope of the tradition Pynchon is writing in, maybe first cemented by the likes of Swift and Burton and Sterne.
>Did I make a mistake by having this as my first Pynchon novel?
It was my first and I liked it but had similar complaints about meandering and poor plot resolution. After reading The Crying of Lot 49 I realized that those things are stylistic decisions, and that in Inherent Vice he simply watered down his style (again, potboiler, riding the coattails of contemporary Californian weed lmao culture) to such a degree that it looks like awkward writing rather than something intentional. I like to recommend that people read his "California trilogy" (Lot 49, Vineland, Inherent Vice) as a "backdoor" into his work, given that they're his easiest books and they all grapple with similar themes, and then chipping away at the rest of his work chronologically as far as one can stomach (i.e., V., Gravity's Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, etc.). But if you hate Inherent Vice so much you might be better suited to just going straight to V.; at the very least try Lot 49.

[Anonymous No.14003248]

Should I be worried about there being a lack of density in AtD? My impression is that most people enjoy it more than his other works because of its being somewhat more approachable, which to me sounds like an alarm for "no pleb filter here". I have come to the point that I crave that coomplexity and need it to really have my thoughts swirl just right. Are my fears unfounded? Will AtD still give me that riddle-me-this fix?

[Anonymous No.14003274]

>>14003248
Nah, AtD is pretty nice imo at least, it's a bit more approachable than GR and MnD but it still has what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.14003342]

>>14003248
just read V instead

[Anonymous No.14003527]

>>14003244
>>14003342
Adding onto these anons, if you dislike both Inherent Vice and V. then Pynchon isn't for you

[Anonymous No.14003578]

>>14002287
>If I were to describe it by one word, so far that privilege would befall the word "mediocre".
Stop writing like this.

>divulges into pointless meandering
*diverges

I haven't read IV but it is generally regarded as a "lesser" or "lighter" work. GR does all of the things you complained about, but in a brilliantly creative and engaging manner. I don't know what I'd reccomend next but Gravity's Rainbow is a must-read, and if you happen to be one of those people that just doesn't like P then I feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.14003582]

>>14003248
>no pleb filter
m8 the book's dimensions are enough of a pleb filter already

[Anonymous No.14003601]

>>14003527
I kinda disliked V. but I loved GR. I think maybe I was too lost during V. because I had to get used to his writing, but I'm glad I read it before GR because I could just jump right into it. I can't really put the pieces of V. together to see the Big Picture, which I can at least begin to do with GR.

I imagine I'll like V. more on a re-read though

[Anonymous No.14004422]

>>14003578
>Stop writing like this.
..sorry? I'll probably read V or 49 next and see where that takes me, won't be some time before I tackle GR

[Anonymous No.14004477]

>>14003195
Mason & Dixon

[Anonymous No.14004492]

>>14003244
>It's his potboilerest book
I don't think so, I think he wanted to write a nostalgic piece on the most formative times in his life, back when he was an uber-drugged-up hippie with paranoia.

[Anonymous No.14004569]

>>14004422
>sorry?
you fuckin better be, kid

[Anonymous No.14004633]

>>14004422
>..sorry?
>used the word befall
im almost certain you are reddit. just lurk some more and turn into an asshole like the rest of us, fag.

[Anonymous No.14005927]

>>14002287
>so far that privilege would befall the word "mediocre".
this claim in a clause written like that? lmao
that's all I will add

[Anonymous No.14005940]

can't comment on inherent vice but gravitys rainbow, V. and mason and dixon were all excellent novels.

[Anonymous No.14007023]

>>14002287
>Its style is beautiful for more than 10 pages, but then divulges into pointless meandering
Exactly how I felt with Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.14007054]

I'm convinced that he is not loved for his works so much as what he's like. People saw the potential behind the mediocre quality. He influenced a lot of writers who saw something great in there that they knew they could both launch off of and succeed him with.

[Anonymous No.14007079]

>>14005927
>you have to be on Bach's level to criticize Bach

[Anonymous No.14007348]

His best(made into commercial film) work? Yes.
Good(film based on it received significant ratings from rottentomatoes.com)? Hell no.

[Anonymous No.14008163]

>>14007348
The film was great.

[Anonymous No.14008586]

>>14008163
this, it only tonally works once youve actually read Pynchon and get what they're going for
only makes sense general audiences hate it