meme trilogy

[Anonymous No.22193932]

i started coming on /lit/ like 10 years ago, being only minorly well-read, now ten years later ive finally finished the meme trilogy (plus the recognitions). order was recognitions, gravitys rainbow, ulysses, then IJ. i have to say, i do think each of these books was among the best ive read, and they work well together. i havent been on lit a lot recently so idk if people even talk about them much anymore, but anyone else finished the “trilogy”?

[Anonymous No.22194037]

damn really no replies? is it just done to death at this point… am i too late anons

[Anonymous No.22194039]

>>22193932
>actually fell for the meme trilogy
Top kek, took ten years but we got another one

[Anonymous No.22194046]

>>22193932
what did you like about them?

[Anonymous No.22194048]

>>22193932
Good. Now go and read all three of the meme trilogy part 2.

[Anonymous No.22194059]

>>22194048
Theres…. a … part 2?

[Anonymous No.22194064]

Read the German meme trilogy now.

[Anonymous No.22194066]

>>22194059
blood meridian, white noise, and idk sth else.

[Anonymous No.22194068]

>>22193932
say something about them you idiot, you just finished four extensive and introspective works and all you've produced is 'they were good'. Tell us what you thought, what your analysis is, how they changed you or your life, anything.

[Anonymous No.22194115]

>>22194059
Read the literary biography meme trilogy: Boswell's Life of Johnson, Ellmann's Joyce, and Frank's Dostoyevsky (unabridged)

[Anonymous No.22194158]

>>22194059
Brothers K, Lolita, Stoner

[Anonymous No.22194161]

>>22194039
Tem years well spent. It was all worth it.

[Anonymous No.22194248]

>>22194046
>>22194068
ok u got me, i was more looking for what other people had to say than listening to my own thoughts. reading them out of order was interesting bc ulysses definitely seems like the blueprint, in some ways the most impressive. i still need to read the wake, maybe next. in general it just seems like the doorstopper is an entirely unique medium in and of itself, to have a novel that attempts to contain everything. reading jest especially, because it’s more contemporary, made me think more consciously of the attempts to express things both personal and political/cultural and simultaneously keep people engaged. i think ten years ago i idolized the type of author that would write a book like this, now i think theyre sort of freaks, but in a way where the books themselves are their way of reckoning with the exact kind of freak they are, and i can get on that wavelength, sort of reminds me of like david blaine or wes anderson, artists who are so extreme in their sensibilities that it automatically brands them as outcasts because theyre attempting something so beyond the normal range of human experience. wallace strikes me as the most relatable example, where he clearly has such talent and intelligence that hes able to pull it off, knows that he should, but also knows it wont actually bring him true satisfaction. IJ to me kind of crystallizes the simultaneous futility and beauty of attempting to make a great work of art, reckoning with it, in the context of human happiness and fulfillment, with addiction being the antithesis and escape, we all (and most readers) are addicts who want to be entertained, the artists have some drive to create but they ultimately want to escape too, at the end of it theres really nothing beyond being on either side of that duality. its also interesting how each reckons with both the past literary greats, via i.e. hamlet (with ulysses and ij) and film (all three), as a means of both acknowledging history and trying to transcend it with new forms in an increasingly fragmented and media saturated world. each feels like a way of grappling with and understanding the world through narrative and language on a level that most books dont seem to attempt, usually being more narrow statements, and theres something intoxicating about feeling the weight of a totalizing vision of a madman that is extremely rewarding to me, containing all through the journey of reading rather than aiming to make a more concise point. idk how much sense this makes but im on the verge of sleep, can write more in the morning if this thread is alive

[Anonymous No.22194316]

>>22194248
I was pretty interested in what you had to say after reading the rest of the thread but had to give up like halfway through. How can you read these major literary works, be engaged with /lit/ and then post something like this?

[Anonymous No.22194325]

>>22194248
Damn, that's alot of words
Too bad I ain't readin' 'em

[Anonymous No.22194411]

>>22194248
I like this analysis. Way back in high school I tried reading Ulysses but couldn't get through it, then later during covid I read IJ and started GR. After graduating college and starting work haven't made time to read as much anymore. I really, really liked the themes in IJ so hearing that all three synthesize nicely motivates me to pick the other two back up

[Anonymous No.22195594]

>>22194248
Holy shit... An actual take from a person who actually read each book (or did enough homework to pretend) on /lit/...
>>22194316
>contrarian brainlet

[Anonymous No.22195699]

>>22194411
i would definitely recommend Ulysses and GR, probably in that order. im glad i read IJ last because it is the most accessible/modern but Ulysses is pretty timeless and great, just not the same as reading a contemporary book.

>>22194316
honestly reading back i dont disagree with you, i wrote this at 1am on my phone. its hard to synthesize thoughts about 3000 pages of writing with no specific prompt tho

>>22195594
i really did, it's honestly very doable, and didnt need to take me 10 years. i read IJ in 3 months, Ulysses in about 2 weeks (the first half of which i had covid so got to read a lot), and GR slightly longer probably like 4-5ish months with more breaks. I dont really remember with the recognitions, i think it was about a month or two. but that's all to say you could read all these books in a year or less.

happy to provide more thoughts but i dont have anything specific to say without a question to respond to