[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 84 KB, 750x926, D44BB1B9-BB51-40EE-BF61-B8CF38EC8696.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19791127 No.19791127 [Reply] [Original]

Is Gravity Rainbow the greatest postwar novel with the least amout of influence?

>> No.19791157

>>19791127
How accurate is this title?

>> No.19791218

shitty meme book

>> No.19791254

>>19791127
I'd say it's pretty influential

>> No.19791369

In terms of the ratio of greatness/lack of appreciation, I’d go with Sot Weed Factor. There’s likely something with a higher ratio that practically no one knows about.

>> No.19791443

>>19791127
Why the fuck did he write that shit eating scene? What was the point? Why would anyone write that?

>> No.19791463

>>19791443
Pynchon hates war and wanted to make Col. Pudding and his romanticized view of WWI look as disgusting as possible.

>> No.19791655

>>19791157
It would be accurate if Raiden forgot what he was doing and spent half the book fucking the hostages in the big shell.

>> No.19791752

>>19791443
We already had a thread about this. Go re-read the responses you already got

>> No.19791834
File: 36 KB, 328x500, 51UAeKz0d4L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19791834

>>19791127

>> No.19791874

>>19791834
>>19791369
Good picks. Both amazing novels

>> No.19791899

>>19791218
write yours

>> No.19791907

>>19791127
Wittgenstein's Mistress

>> No.19792047

>>19791127
Little hint: its lack of influence isn't because it's a great book.

>> No.19792067

>>19791834
This was actually a big influence on GR, funnily enough

>> No.19792091

>>19791127
little influence are you retarded? it influenced an entire generation e.g. DFW

>> No.19792136

>>19792091
Not rly

>> No.19792309

>>19792136
watch dfw's interviews on youtube. he explicitly references pynchon as an influence on his work several times.

>> No.19792592

>>19792309
No he doesn't, take your meds now schizo.

>> No.19792614

>>19792592
I know in At the End of the Tour DFW states that he's about 20% influenced by him. Really though most authors deep down already know they don't compare, GR trasnscends influence

>> No.19792833

>>19791899
how about you suck the shit out of my asshole and write about it instead

>> No.19792965

>>19792833
Woah

>> No.19792979

>>19792614
GR isnt even influential to Pynchon; it's an example of an author trying so very hard to prove his worth that his ego overpowers any artistic value in what he's producing. He gets so much better in later works, particularly M&D, after he's gotten over the need to prove himself as a "smart guy" for failing to get into math school. GR is practically screaming at the reader: THIS IS HIGH CONTEXT MATERIAL, THIS IS VERY REFERENTIAL STUFF, THIS IS TOUGH WORK RIGHT HERE, SURELY A VERY SMART MAN WROTE IT.... so amateur honestly compared to his mature work

>> No.19793016

>>19792979
OK dood

>> No.19793251
File: 31 KB, 601x508, 3457243572457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19793251

>>19793016

>> No.19793391

>>19792979
Agreed. He regularly references the Poisson distribution without really showing he understands it at all. "Oh hehe I use the word Brennschluss, yeah I've read 60s sci-fi books, I'm pretty cool...". The book is somewhat fun, but it's not this grand piece of literature everyone hypes it up to be, it's simply well-marketed.

>> No.19793404

>>19793391
Nah it's pretty good

>> No.19793682

>>19792614
DFW had said that he grew out of Pynchon after his early 20s and didn't consider him very good.

>> No.19793872

>>19793404
gr sucks

>> No.19794123

>>19793391
Lol check out DFWs math for what a real English major writing about numbers looks like

>> No.19794125

>>19793682
source? DFW interviews are always so tastily awkward

>> No.19794244

>>19794123
Yeah, when I read IJ I caught on quickly that DFW must have a decent grasp of maths when he started correctly mentioning continuous functions in one of the early notes and errata.

>> No.19794437

>>19793682
sauce plese

>> No.19794607

Someday somebody, who will either be obnoxious or interesting, is going to write a paper or thesis examining the connections between Kojima & Konami’s Metal Gear games and Gravity’s Rainbow (And maybe you’ll wish that you wrote it…) All the themes of those games are present in Pynchon’s book: the paranoia, an attunement to the metaphysics of war and espionage, the cinephilia, a death-wish fascination with military technology. Pynchon explores these themes on a level that the Metal Gear games don’t reach, but they’re also trying to be a different thing, and if you like what Kojima does at his best, and in particular if you like the vibes of Snake Eater, Guns of the Patriots, or Peace Walker, there is a shocking amount of synchronicity to be found in Gravity’s Rainbow.

>> No.19794669

>>19794437
>>19794125
I can't find it right now, but it was in an interview about the commercial avant garde. He also gave Gaddis a few back handed complements in it. He said something to the like that their fictions were 'hollow'.

>> No.19794734

>>19793391
>without really showing he understands it
This might be hard for you to understand because it's so far outside your realm of experience, but Pynch doesn't give the slightest shit about being "correct." One of the central motifs of GR is a scathing criticism of the scientism of which mathematics is a component. Like Joyce before him, he's a Trojan horse ferrying an atom bomb into the walled city of Academia. Correctness is fungible. Truth, in the eyes of Pynchon, is at the very least indeterminable. If truth is indeterminable, where does that leave its derivatives of correctness and understanding?

>> No.19794814

>>19794734
Not him, but you are conflating one concept with many others. First of all, the hard science put into the book (and in Pynchon's others) in metaphors or references are rarely, if ever, questioned. Rather the book is leaning towards the relativistic instead of the deterministic interpretation of universe. You are mistaking the book's commentary on the indeterminability of truth with its skepticism on science itself, which is not the case in the least. The book is not a thesis against science. How can it be when it repeatedly appropriates it to drive home its commentary? What use would all the (factual) painstaking research be if we accept that truth is indeterminable from the get go? The partial dervatives explaining the Rocket's trajectory are all correct, why would they be if "science" is indeterminable according to the book? Indeterminability of truth is not a blanket statement that justifies everything. It certainly doesn't apply to science, a field of study that is entirely devoted to verification of the true. Calling it indeterminable when you have nothing beyond speculation in a work of fiction would be the supreme banality which I don't reckon Pynchon is stupid enough to commit. Nor is it backed by the book. The probability distribution is appropriated to centralize the probability of history as a major theme, or man's need for explanatory connections in the universe. How is the probabilistic science itself questioned here?
It is a slight against scientism, but only at the arrogant scientists who are always too puffed up against art. At best, in its esotericism Pynchon is arguing for a more speculative and sentimental understanding of the universe against the cold rationality of science. This has nothing to do with the correctness of science nor is it phrased as such in the book.

>> No.19795026

>>19794734
I never said he's incorrect, I just said he references it in a way that makes me think he doesn't (or didn't) understand the Poisson distribution fully. It's not that he's wrong, it just feels like the mathematical equivalent of writing a report on Shakespeare when you've only read the spark-notes. Just comes off like he's trying too hard to sound like an expert in something he's not an expert in.

>> No.19795357

>>19794814
>The book is not a thesis against science. How can it be when it repeatedly appropriates it to drive home its commentary?
It's a paradox, for sure. You're putting words into my mouth about the book being "a thesis against science," though. I chose my words carefully, and there's some nuance I absolutely intended to be read from the use of scientism vs. science that you're not giving me credit for. To answer, however, it absolutely can be a fundamental point within the book while using its own internal logic. Read: Trojan horse, another specifically chosen term with broader implications. I think people (especially scientists, in an example of genuine irony considering the context of this discussion) can have difficulty with paradoxes. At the heart of GR is an intentional, Gödelian paradox of self-reference WRT science, using its rigor to express a more absolute relativism.
>What use would all the (factual) painstaking research be if we accept that truth is indeterminable from the get go?
What use is anything, really? From a position IN EXPRESSION OF (not necessarily in full-throated endorsement) absolute relativism, what use is science? Does the universe require even human beings to survive? To the contrary—and you're crazy if you think this is lost on Pynchon—universal entropy is finite. What the universe seems to actually want with its actions is to march slowly into a complete end to chaos into a completely ordered nothingness.
>banality etc.
Things you find banal in Current Year may not have been so to Pynchon in the 60s and 70s. They may even be more nuanced than you think they are. It's always nice and neat when we convince ourselves that things we like are Absolutely Interesting and the things we dislike are Absolutely Banal, but unless you can claim to have run through all possible permutations and implications of a point in its full context, you might be overstepping yourself.

>> No.19795368

>>19794669
based dfw

>> No.19795424

>>19795026
>makes me think he doesn't (or didn't) understand the Poisson distribution fully
Again, he really just doesn't give a shit. Your gut feeling is probably accurate. In his collection of short stories, he talks pretty glibly about how he was given more credit for his understanding of entropy than he warranted. He really doesn't care, and that's okay. The only people who are really going to care are academic pedants and that special kind of infinitely restless "intellectual" running around performing his gay little litmus tests by which he establishes his pecking order in the hierarchy of knowledge, a common type in academia, and the unwitting butt of jokes among the genuinely great minds of a generation for his pretension and obsession with the social dynamics of knowledge.

>> No.19795427

>>19795357
>At the heart of GR is an intentional, Gödelian paradox of self-reference WRT science, using its rigor to express a more absolute relativism.
Relativism IS part of science. It had been part of science for 3 decades when Pynchon published the book.
>Gödelian paradox
Explain. I think you are only throwing words around. The universe and Science are two different things. Pynchon using science to elaborate on universe's relativity is no paradox. In fact, the indeterminability of truth is the central schtick of early postmodernism, just shuffle around history/universe.
>From a position IN EXPRESSION OF (not necessarily in full-throated endorsement) absolute relativism, what use is science? Does the universe require even human beings to survive?
You are stepping outside bounds, but if i were to be pedantic, i could very well say that it is, with 99% surety, not "marching" to anything. That death will turn everything obsolete is no slight against science. The process is perceptible and can be measured. Besides, Math has forever tuned itself with a self reflexivity not present in other sciences, thereby making it even less susceptible to accusations of 'rough' and 'inefficient'. Again, my insistence is only on the process and its measurement, not what it all finally means. The illusion of reality is better brought up in Moby dick. If it was in GR, with an agenda against scientific rigor, it lost me and i request you to please post the evidence.
>you might be overstepping yourself.
Am I? I already made a case for its banality (not to mention its wrongness). While you only have the speculation that "it could be more nuanced than you think" to put up in opposition. Once again, I am not arguing against the choice of theme (indeterminability of truth), which was in line and in fad with the times. I only take offence at your justifying what might be a rudimentary understanding of poisson's distribution on Pynchon's part (speculative; not very important anyway. Who cares if a fiction writer got math wrong) to be a sign of his "genius", when nothing else in the book backs it up.

>> No.19795478

>>19794607
MGSV is like a tribute to pynchon's life hidden behind all the surface level 1984 allusions, shits lit

>> No.19795493

>>19794244
And you think that's more impressive than pynchon? Are you memeing right now?

>> No.19795565

>>19795427
>Relativism IS part of science. It had been part of science for 3 decades when Pynchon published the book.
And the world has been reeling in its wake ever since.
>The universe and Science are two different things.
Different, but highly intertwined. I'll add mathematics explicitly into the mix as well, because it is overwhelmingly (but not exclusively, of course) the lingua franca of science ergo reality. I don't want to dive as autistically deep into this as it might warrant, if only to avoid getting sucked into deep waters. That said, I think we can agree that science is, roughly, the search of reproducible truths in the universe. It looks for truths about reality, and its axioms are, in a pure form, observational.

I'm not going to insult anyone reading this by mounting arguments with which we're all familiar, but I will suggest that there are many arguments that can be made—crucially, sometimes within the bounds of physics and mathematics—be they many-worlds, solipsist, whatever. Pynchon is a writer of fiction. The Pynchon that wrote GR 50 or so years ago was a writer of fiction and, at the time, REAL fuckin high. Postmodern shticks are such arguably because of Pynch himself, and would have by necessity had a different context then as compared to now, after we've had fifty more years to examine permutations of relativism. Again, what may have been rendered "banal" (I fucking hate typing this word) at some point or by certain demographics, does not preclude Pynchon's interest in it.

Being wrong or passé is not a sin for an author of fiction. These are, of course, all only interpretations, as none of us in this thread are Pynchon, who himself might actually be the most misleading trickster of all. The only sin of a writer is to write poorly. Nobody will ever know exactly what Pynchon meant by any of this. Nobody will ever know if he actually meant anything at all. So, no, I won't provide examples from the text because I don't have any. What I have is a mixture of gathered intuitions interacting with my own predispositions. I read Pynchon as Pynchon wrote. Loose, easy, and always by the seat of my freely-associating pants.

>> No.19795608

>>19795565
Okay we have an agreement there. The indeterminability of truth was not on Pynchon btw, it is a hertage from modernism, one could argue even protomodernism since Melville and Conrad deal with this pretty explicitly.
>banality
I think you missed my implication. The banality which i am referring to, would be if it had been, is one of unsupported skepticism of science by Pynchon which in my view is not present. It is extremely easy to go "yeah, science is wrong, everything is arbitrary" which is banal, yes.

Theoretical physics is shaky ground. I meant more in the way of math which is always questionable until reinforced by absolute logic. I am aware of the hole in it but it is truer than most facts would yield on closer inspection. If Pynchon fucked up, he fucked up. It doesn't matter that much. Although I don't think he did. He probably only has a basic understanding of it which is fine. More rigorous sciences don't yield to metaphors and allusions very easily anyway.

>> No.19795617

>>19791127
I want to have what you are smoking where you think Gravity's Rainbow is not an influential novel

>> No.19795620

>>19795424
Pynchon is a pseud nevertheless. People who use words like pedantic are really the case of sour grapes. This reminds me of a certain French writer who exposed such hacks in philosophy.

>> No.19795633

>>19795608
He didn't fuck up anything though, anon just said he thinks pynchon doesn't know what a Poisson process is because it's mentioned. The math in the book is sound.

>> No.19795639

>>19795620
>The only people who are really going to care are academic pedants and that special kind of infinitely restless "intellectual" running around performing his gay little litmus tests by which he establishes his pecking order in the hierarchy of knowledge, a common type in academia, and the unwitting butt of jokes among the genuinely great minds of a generation for his pretension and obsession with the social dynamics of knowledge.
>PsEuD!!!!!!!!!

>> No.19795643

>>19795639
Nah, you are though

>> No.19795661
File: 179 KB, 917x871, 1640594527617.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19795661

>>19795643
>oh no, he's placed himself above me on his personal hierarchy of intellectuals!

>> No.19795667

>>19795661
You made the claims lmao

>> No.19795678

>>19795667
I have no clue what you're talking about. If I'm wrong about something, I'm open to that.

>> No.19795734

>>19795608
>The indeterminability of truth was not on Pynchon btw, it is a hertage from modernism
I mean, you can arbitrarily broaden or narrow the scope of pretty much everything. Artistic movements often have significant overlap and are most commonly tied to specific artists. You could also make the argument that Joyce was the first postmodernist. The only reason he isn't is that he... wasn't around when the other Big Pomo Men were.
>unsupported skepticism of science by Pynchon
Yeah, to me that sounds way too paranoid... you know, of big power structures.... I want to say I don't mean to be snide but I kind of do.

>> No.19795736

>>19795478
Are you implying he lives on an oil rig and travels around in a helicopter kidnapping peopleto add to his writing staff?

>> No.19795752
File: 490 KB, 800x556, external-content.duckduckgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19795752

This is now a thread for the best character in GR, Byron the Bulb

>> No.19795835

>>19795752
yeah , you're not wrong. his byron passage and his short storys are tp best work

>> No.19795902

>>19795835
No lol

>> No.19795920

>>19795902
why?

>> No.19796149

>>19795920
You first :)

>> No.19796158

The people talking about Pynchon not knowing what he's talking about re: maths...

>> No.19796318

>>19796149
obviously b/c they are the most pucked up.
have you checked out jd ballard?

>> No.19796512

>>19795734
>you can arbitrarily broaden or narrow the scope of pretty much everything.
It's not arbitrary though. And even among Capital P postmodernists Pynchon was neither the first nor the first famous one to do that.
>you know, of big power structures.... I want to say I don't mean to be snide but I kind of do.
>hard science
>power structure
You're stupid. I wasted my time.

>> No.19796627

>>19795478
Really? I loved the MGS games way before I got into /lit/ but could never get around to finishing MGSV. I might have to finally get around to it.

>> No.19797013

>>19791127
>most popular book written by most popular living American author

>hurr durr underappreciated!!!

>> No.19797023

>>19797013
how is it most popular?

>> No.19797353

>>19793391
>>19792979
Gravity's Rainbow has some really excellent stretches, and particularly those last 100-200 pages are so exhilarating.

Mason & Dixon may be his best, but the problems with Pynchon exist through his oeuvre, not just in certain parts. You're telling me Against the Day isn't overly long and often cringe? What was the Vineland middle section (possibly the worst thing Pynchon has ever written)? And nobody seems to like Bleeding Edge very much. Pynchon struggles to make characters who seem real, rather than a collection self-aware facts.

>> No.19797580

>>19795424
what would it matter as long as it isn't wrong though? doesn't all fiction need to be just loose storys around facts. if it was exploring new ground wouldn't it be an encyclopaedic novel or something. P.S. i use spellcheck

>> No.19797585
File: 72 KB, 774x700, 1583400183473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19797585

>>19792965
>Woah

>> No.19797604

>>19791127
No, that would be Hedyphagetica.

>> No.19797615

>>19797353
... I liked Bleeding Edge.

:(

>> No.19798194

>>19797023
>popular

because its synonymous with Pynchon's name, much like Ulysses with Joyce

>> No.19798507

>>19791127
all these fucking people saying M&D is actually his best... god damn why does no one actually read Against the Day???

>> No.19799035

>>19797013
>most popular living author
Reddit is not the world.

>> No.19799507

>>19798507
they lack spirit and class consciousness
>>19799035
Nice counterexample dipshit.

>> No.19799593

>>19798507
Because liking M&D and its stylized prose allows them to think they're smarter than plebs who like Lot or something "simpler".

Anyway, Against The Day. Honest answer why so few anons seem to have read it is it's probably not worth it for the effort required. It's about 50% longer than GR for starters and, personally, I don't think ATD hangs together as well. There are some great parts to it all, definitely, but I think it increasingly lacks focus towards the end. As another anon said, it would benefit from some serious editing. That said, I wish there was more discussion of it so I could see if there are things I've missed.

>> No.19800705

>>19799507
Did you even read AtD?