why do i get such a hollow feeling whenever i engage with his work. I have read gravity's rainbow and tcol49, and just watched pic related and there's a really deeply lonely common mood to all of them in spite of all being overstuffed with characters. maybe it has something to do with the thorough impropriety and nihilistic hedonism of his worlds. even the moral actors are just directionless animals. is that just postmodernism?
Try Against the Day, few books hurt as much as it does. We lost so much and it is difficult to believe it was a fair trade for what we gained.
>>23736402Gay book for psueds. Reading makes you gay and sad.
>>23736418>Against the DayWas thinking of either this or Mason and Dixon but even V. isn't entirely void of the 'readerly intimacy' it would appear OP craves
>>23736402Just so you know we already have a thread dedicated to discussing books >>23736283. Please don't clutter the board.Thanks, Anon.
>>23736440'readerly intimacy' sounds extremely gay >>23736524kill yourself
>>23736440M&D is essentially a /b/ thead with some feels at the end. It is a good book but it will not satisfy OP. Characters are fairly disconnected in V. but they are supposed to be, they have no direction in life, may work. so of a big boy version of Catcher in the Rye in that sense.
>>23736402its about america. his books read really schizo and conspiratorial
>>23736564>gaywarmth, then. OP doesn't want to feel left or frozen out, made to feel abandoned, alone.>with some feels at the endThere are warm 'atmospherics' throughout M&D the recollection of which (even if subliminal) abets the fact that those concluding 'feels' do come off
>>23736402He is a person form a different culture which is already very far away in the past and feels very alien to modern readers. Even in the case of Against the Day, it was written by a man in his sixties, it would have been very naive to think that he understands the post 9/11 era the same way millennials do.
>>23737015Naive. He has a FAR better grasp of what came before, and has had the leisure both to use and to keep up with the tech than most any 'millennial'I mention both knowledge and use of tech because arguably that's the only field in which millennials conceivably could compete with him.
>>23737015Yeah, I felt so sad reading Bleeding Edge after experiencing GR. Felt like that “How do you do, fellow kids” meme wrote a book.
>>23736418Can you explain for non Pynchon readers? What have we lost?
>>23736402Boomers are soulless
>>23737575>What have we lost?We have lost far-out and groovy boomer vibes, man.
>>23736402OP is speedreading Pynchon LMAO>>23736419Reading is cringe.>>23736634t. never read Pynchon>>23737027The book about an adult, married-w/kids yenta felt like it was pandering to 'kids'? Huh?>>23737575One example, just skip around in this 6hr+ video and you'll get a sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy2FVFkLkLg>>23737689Pynchon isn't a baby boomer retard =)
>>23737027yeah, those pop culture references felt really forced. i hope his next one takes place further removed from the present than bleeding edge
>>23738573there is no next one. sorry.
>>23737575The unknown. It is set when science and tech first became a part of daily life for most everyone which fundamentally changed how we relate to the unknown; over a period of a few decades society went from living with the unknown to anything which could be thought up was plausible thanks to science! to its all just data. AtD explores this shift in how we think and relate to the world and does a good job of avoiding trite sentimentality or making it out that the past was some golden era, just makes it difficult to not believe that we lost something very important along the way. >>23738567You seem to have not read the book, possibly read the first 10 or 20 pages but clearly have not read it. Despite what many say, it is not about the world's fair and The White City, barely deals with them and they are just in the general area for the first part of the book. Nor is it steampunk. That video has absolutely nothing to do with AtD. Ironic that you accused someone else of not having read Pynchon.
>>23738670>Ironic that you accused someone else of not having read PynchonYour lack of insight (that's the 1939 world's fair, retard) and your accusation says it all =)
>>23736996>warm 'atmospherics' >subliminallol. He is right, the clocks show more emotional maturity than M&D do for the first 900 pages. >>23738748OK, I will bite, what the fuck does the 1939 world's fair have to do with AtD? I think you are trying to move the goal posts on that anon.
>>23738748Even without the title stating that it is the 1939 fair it is obvious that it is not the 1893 Chicago fair. Only way to connect your video to AtD is through it being a World's Fair, a very weak and tangential connection. Feel free to explain what I am missing.
>>23736402I think this might not be exactly the feeling you're experiencing, OP, but I can relate with a similar feeling. I feel like he is trying so hard to be funny and clever that it takes away any genuine emotion or comedic energy from his writing. He's basically like those Harvard to Simpsons comedy pipeline writes who are just comedy nerds and scholars, trying to apply comedic principles to challenging, non traditionally comedic subjects, as an intellectual exercise, rather than as an outgrowth of actual pain, emotions, or "real" observations. Compare Pynchon to Celine, an actual funny writer, writing about real shit, and you will see what I'm talking about.
Hot take is I actually see a very emotional core to some of Pynchon (from what I’ve read of him so far), it’s just that the extreme cerebrality and complex, challenging plots can sometimes obscure this.
>>23738828Pynchon mostly keeps the jokes within the constraints of the time period he is writing about and generally they are the character's jokes and in character. This means the jokes are often not funny because humor has a tendency to not live beyond its time and place. Seems a good move from the lit standpoint, the jokes are not going to be funny forever no matter what he does and jokes which actually get you laughing are often very disappointing when reencountered on the reread. Start with jokes which have already fallen out of style and your book will not fall out of style purely because the humor is so last year. He always throws in a few good and proper jokes, generally subtle and more about giving your a good chuckle than putting you into tears.
>>23738953Yeah, that's kinda to my point. His approach to comedy is a scholar's approach, rather than an actual comedian's, or even just a person with a sense of humor. Just because something takes place a long time ago, does not mean the jokes only apply to humor of the time, as humans deal with much of the same problems no matter what time they're living in. Aristophanes is still funny to a modern audience, for example. I will never chuckle at Pynchon's work because he's simply not funny.
>>23738567>Pynchon isn't a baby boomer retard =)Dude, that guy is the biggest boomer I have ever seen. Have you even read his books? They're like boomer instruction manuals.
>>23739003You are very confused. LOL.
>>23738986My point is you are conflating his approach to writing with his approach to humor, a character telling a joke is not meant to make you laugh, it is meant to make other characters laugh or not if the character is meant to have a poor sense of humor, for the reader it is meant to provide information. Pynchon keeps a clear distinction between his humor and that of the characters/time/place, this is fairly common in literature. But Pynchon is not a comedian and not trying to make the world laugh, he has other goals. He uses humor but keeps it fairly minimal and makes sure it does not negatively affect his purpose.
>>23739319Wouldn't that be like saying I'm conflating Pynchon's worldview with his writing? I'm not sure how you can separate a person's sense of humor from their writing. If they're funny (or at least attempting to be funny) it will be in their books. The guy writes about erections corresponding with missile launches. If that's not an attempt at humor, what is it?I'm talking about his humor and his characters' humor. He's just not funny. He tries too hard to be funny. He heavily uses puns and other humorous word play so I'm not sure how you can call it minimal?
>>23739716nta but did you even read GR? Hard to see how anyone who read it could think Slothrop's errections are childish humor.
>>23739938Naw I read like two chapters of it and got tired of it. Same with his other books. His writing style annoys me. I can't stop picturing some smarmy Harvard Lampoon writer when I read it
>>23736402Gravity's Rainbow is a real lush book, you just have to get it.
>>23739957Why are you even in this thread? just a dilettante in general?
>>23738766>show more emotional maturitySure, take refuge behind a psychologism; one that implies that (you), the reader, are some exemplar of 'emotional maturity,' as if that's what determines a works pathos. Is MacBeth 'emotionally mature'? Hamlet?American History is literally a Loony Toon. This can't escape anyone who actually reads into it: observe if you will right now the current candidates for president: bastions of 'emotional maturity'But if (you) prefer clocks to human beings or human nature I guess that's your business, anonYou're both priggishly and dreadfully wrong
>>23740000nice quads. I'm in this thread because I hate pynchon and I wanted to dogpile on OP's feeling about him. Am I a dilettante because I'm following a genuine emotional reaction to someone's work that I hate? Should I force myself to read all of his books so I can hate him even more?
>>23740120Kek. What authors please (you)? Would (you) smother an OP who vaunted one of your favorites with undying affection?Perhaps you're just ignorant, but ignorant persons don't typically think of that
>>23740245Many please me -- I love James Clavell for example and I will sometimes participate in discussion threads related to him -- This thread specifically, OP described a feeling that was near to the feeling that I feel for Pynchon, so I wanted to relate that to OP so we could generate some discussion on that aspect of Pynchon.
>>23740111Who is taking refuge? Pynchon does almost nothing to develop the relationship between Mason and Dixon for the first 900 pages of the book and no one would call it a deep friendship based on those 900 pages, he does it all after the fact in the epilogue. It is a good book but is very unlikely to get OP to feel any better about Pynchon and considering his criticisms I doubt he would make it through those first 900 pages. >>23740120He called you a dilettante because you are speaking beyond your knowledge. He is right. The erections/rockets bit is far from a joke, it is a fairly important device for supporting and developing theme.
Pynchon is shit and so is this thread
>>23740120Yes anon you need to read more than 2 chapters to get a sense of an author's work :)
>>23740728
>>23739957>havent read a single book by the author>still posts his take on himwhy?
>>23740120you dont even hate him, you hate an image you made up in your head based on reading a few pages by him, not even a single entire bookthis makes your posts off topic since this thread is about pynchon and you posting about a made up pynchon that only exists in your headclassic /lit/ desu
>>23741523never said I hated off topic postsjust wanted to point out the irrationality of that specific pynchon seether
that anon posted the truth and then dipped. why, anon? some midwits really needed to be exposed.
>>23741557I don't want to get caught up in another useless debate with classic /lit/ when I should be working on my thesis.
I know what you're talking about OP, I've read all of Pynchon and it's my only criticism.Pynchon consistently misdirects his efforts. It's like that example of the high IQ boomer that can type out 80 words per minute with just his fingertips; because he's finding success without ever having to do it the "right" way, he's not going to learn the homekey method and potentially type much faster and easier. So too does Pynchon rely on his natural writing method - the goofy songs, the extreme deep cut references, the magic-realism. He's writing a book that he enjoys writing, not one created with effort for his audience to enjoy.And who knows, maybe a book like that wouldn't even be very good! Maybe the enjoyable quality of his writing comes from the fact that you can tell he had a blast writing it. That's certainly what was missing from DFW, you could tell it was 90% a stress-filled grind for him. But this disconnect from the reader you get with Pynchon, it's because we are watching him write, rather than being written "to". does that make sense?
>>23741856Lmao what are you talking about, GR is a classic example of what Watterson was talking about with breaking the rules correctly requires a thorough understanding of the rules you are subverting. GR has a lot of goofy misdirection on the surface, but it's all in service of a classicly constructed novel underneath.
>>23741856Really good analysis.
>>23742179Moron
>>23741856Nice to see someone who's read the book and put some thought into it. I felt the same way about a lot of the stuff. DFW as well. Who is someone you like? I feel like Joyce is a real master.
>>23742228Not enough thought to understand it apparently :)
>>23738986I don’t know, I thought Slothrop screaming “Major Marvy sucks NIGGERS!” to taunt him was hilarious.
>>23742262Meant to reply to: >>23739716
>>23741856>Pynchon consistently misdirects his effortsnot in the slightest>the high IQ boomer that can type out 80 words per minute with just his fingertipsthe high iq zoomer who types 80 words per minute with just his phone os keyboard blah blah>So too does Pynchon rely on his natural writing methodYou're not widely read enough to know what he's doing apparently. What if I told you his main influence is Shakespeare?The goofy songs are wow in all of literature and in reality too. Yoyodyne has goofy sing alongs? Hurr woah! pic rel>the extreme deep cut referencesNaming it thus comes from your smaller worldview. Whatever example you have it mind isn't a deep cut, it's just out of your bandwidth. >the magic-realismThere is a lot of weirdness-realism but how much of it is in the characters' psychotic heads?>not one created with effort for his audience to enjoy.Hi audience worships his books and investigates them like they're religious texts.Don't be disgusting and compare DFW to Pynchon. >does that make sense?From the dinosaur bone bit and what we can make of you based on what you've said, yes, your point of view is just perfectly you.
>>23741856>I know what you're talking about OP, I've read all of Pynchon and it's my only criticism.>Pynchon consistently misdirects his efforts. It's like that example of the high IQ boomer that can type out 80 words per minute with just his fingertips; because he's finding success without ever having to do it the "right" way, he's not going to learn the homekey method and potentially type much faster and easier. So too does Pynchon rely on his natural writing method - the goofy songs, the extreme deep cut references, the magic-realism. He's writing a book that he enjoys writing, not one created with effort for his audience to enjoy.i've only read the crying of lot 49, but i think i see what you mean; seems like a really smart, funny dude that wants to put all the stuff in his head onto the page, whether or not it makes for a compelling and/or good book.>>23742228surprisingly, there are still some of us who actually read. i've seen some really good effortposters in shakespeare threads
>>23742284What about lot 49 wasn't compelling for you? Was the play too violent?
>>23742284yeah what this guy said>>23742349What didn't resound for you?
>>23742284You can't judge him based of crying or his first four books really. He was still in boomer mode. He doesn't pick up until Mason & Dixon.
>>23742367
>>23741572>i don't know what a dilettante is but I am getting my phd!lol. Or is this your thesis for 10th grade English which you had to take again in summer school?>>23742284Lot 49 is nothing like the rest of his work, I suspect the anon you are responding too also only read lot49, hence his thinking Pynchon has a blast writing. samefag
>>23742367I disagree, they're all great. Couple of masterpieces. My favorite is Against the Day. I've gone through dozens of threads on r/thomaspynchon talking about people's favorite one and it seems the majority of people chose AtD, so it seems pretty popular.
>>23738986Yeah, some humor holds up over time. The last act of A Midsummer Night's Dream is still hilarious and feels just as current as a good episode of The Office.
>>23742367This, so much this!His first 3 books, award winning, celebrated, nationally & internationally: V. + The Crying of Lot 49 + V2 aka Gravity's Rainbow are in "boomer mode". Tommy obviously isn't a boomer given he is part of The Silent Generation, but don't let that stop you from calling him a boomer and pretending his perspectives are baby boomer perspectives. If anyone points out he was born into the Great Depression and came of age in an era gearing up for the senseless nightmare war in Europe, just blather on about boomers, man. Who understands those novels anyway? Boomers?Now Mason & Dixon, that's something anyone can sink his teeth into! Pynchon finally hitting his stride at long last. Heck, Paul Thomas Anderson even made a hella cool movie from Inherited Vice or whatever it was called. What a superversion of boomerism that was!kys
>>23742382>I suspect the anon you are responding too
>>23742387>as a good episode of The Officethis is some advanced b8 ily
>>23742279>Don't be disgusting and compare DFW to Pynchon.It's literally why DFW killed himselfThe rest of your post is impotent effort concern-trolling, and I don't engage>>23741572I stated my point, and people either misunderstood it completely or were wrong and disagreed. >>23742382>I suspect the anon you are responding too also only read lot49My first line was literally>I've read all of PynchonWhich is to say, I've read GRx5, AtDx3, IVx4, TCoL49x5, M&Dx2, and then V, BE, VL, SL once each.
>>23742587>I've read all of PynchonI know you said that but that does not mean it is true. I don't see how someone can think he had a blast writing the bulk of his work, everything about it shows endless revisions and research right down to agonizing over each and every word choice.
>>23736402>is that just postmodernism?nah, boomer thing. you wouldn’t get it.
Serious question. Not wanting to get involved with this debate about Pynchon. I'm taking a class on irony and sincerity, and I thought I had the definition of "irony" down, but then we listened to some song where some lady says a bunch of things and says they're ironic, but our professor told us they're actually not ironic, just coincidences which really threw me for a loop. So I just want to know if this post >>23742382 where he makes fun of someone's english but then makes a hilarious mistake on something we learn as children (to vs. too) and I'm not trying to rag on that anon or anything. I just want to know if that's irony or coincidence.
>>23742700You should probably work on your comprehension before moving onto irony, he did not make fun of that anons English.
>>23742700>zoomers not knowing Alanis Morisetteanyway..good question...my first reaction is it's irony, but now i'm questioning whether or not I understand the exact definition as well. coincidence maybe? shit, I don't even know...maybe some grammar nerds can help
>>23742718I don't remember the song well enough and don't care to look it up but she could be saying what is ironic is people thinking those are ironic. That would be irony. But it is a pop song and really should not be analyzed in autistic depth, always hated the professors who tried to connect with their class through popular culture, they never went much beyond the superficial and left me feeling cheated.
>>23742706Ok, just pretend he did. Then is it irony or coincidence?>>23742718Alright, thanks. It seems a difficult concept.
>>23742674Yeah, the characterization that he just types as he goes is particularly egregious
>>23742738Discarding an entire post on one typo is bad form
>>23742735Ok, off the top of my head I remember "raining on your wedding day" which is obviously coincidence and "a free ride when you've already paid" which I would've guessed is ironic, but I guess not?
>>23742745Please read my post more closely. Discarding would mean I care about the substance of the post and the argument, but I don't. He said something about one anon failing 10th grade english, then proceeded to make his own english mistake. I don't care about their argument. I just want to know if it's irony or coincidence.
>>23742738It is most likely just a simple error by someone who did not care enough about the post to to look any further for errors than check for squiggly lines. I don't think there is enough there to call it irony or coincidence. >>23742748On their own they are not irony, but there could be more context elsewhere in the song or there could be implied contexts. Lyrics are terrible for such analysis, it requires you to ignore the point. Maybe in a bit I will go through the lyrics and do an effort post but my supper is done and I must eat!
>>23742766You don't care but you keep bringing it up
>>23742777Would have to fall under one or the other, wouldn't it? I don't know though, so I'll take your word for it.>>23742793No, I don't. I did just then because you brought up discarding posts. Why do you want to argue this? Do you not value your time more than this?
>>23742803>I didn't but I didI just like discussing pynchon
>>23742827>i lost the argument but i’ll keep going anyway because i’m a 4chan autistyou’re doing anything but talking about pynchon
Pynchon is my favorite!
>>23742700Yes, it’s irony. God, we’re supposed to be on a board full of literature majors. How does no one know this?
>>23742831What argument I was just calling you out for being pedantic in the pynchon thread
>>23742700>some lady says a bunch of things and says they're ironic, but our professor told us they're actually not ironic,Isn't that ironic?
>>23742839I accept your concession.
>>23742803>Would have to fall under one or the other, wouldn't it? I don't know though, so I'll take your word for it.For it to be irony he would have to be making fun of that anons editing/proofreading skills, not his usage. To determine irony you must first comprehend or the irony ends up being you. Identify what is being said and it's purpose, that anon is clearly calling the other anon a larper and English was likely picked for some other reason or random since the other anons usage is fine and not even contrived as it is with most larpers. This is my problem with your teacher's use of the song, those things may not meant to be ironic and just proof of some larger irony, ignoring context just makes you a retard parroting what others say without consideration.
>>23742700Quick look at the song, they are absolutely not meant to be ironic, they are easily relayeable things like the tragic ironnies of life. You teacher is a tragic irony. This is the problem with these sorts of teachers, he probably used it because many people often think that part of the song is a list of ironies but pulling it out of context just exacerbates the problem.
>>23742919>relayeableRelatable. Why am I phone posting when the computer is right there? Fucking autocorrect.
>>23742923Too late anon you made a spelling mistake time to discard your post
>>23742279>Whatever example you have it mind isn't a deep cut, it's just out of your bandwidth.Mickey Rooney performing for Stalin and Malcolm X being a shoeshining pimp in the Rainbow Room was, without a doubt, a deep cut in 1973. Remember this was before people got 50 little retarded tidbit articles a day to ingrain factoids into their brainsEspecially because he didn't explicitly name either of those people in the actual book, people just realized years later what he was clearly referring to. The man was a spiritual magnet for bizarre facts.
