/lit/ - Literature

weird typical freighted thread but I've only read GR and the Crying and I prefer the former :3

>>16662474
size =/= quality

>>16662474
haven't read against the day but gr is my favourite book and after getting about halfway through mason and dixon it doesn't feel like there's as much *heft* to it as gravity's rainbow. the weird philosophical/mystical digressions i loved in gr aren't really there in m&d, you just get flashes of it, like mason's reflections on rebekah, which are pretty brief. i do like the book, it's a great comfy story like everyone says but was i expecting something of it that it wasn't going to live up to? does the 18th century language kind of mask the philosophical underpinning of the work? or am i dumb?

>>16663407
the work takes the idea of conspiracy which runs through much of Pynchon's work and makes it into a metaphysical one; it also plays off the idea of the aleatory nature of progress or the unknowable nature of the future ––in short: epistemic uncertainty –– by providing countless absurd theories along with ones which we now understand to be correct and thoroughly early Modern. By doing this he concentrates on the ephemera of the past and fundamental issue of comprehensive knowledge. In this way, it is perhaps even more philosophical than GR, just less overtly so. The entire book is a philosophical digression.

>>16662474
Didn't bother with Against the Day but Gravity's Rainbow is undoubtedly better than Mason and Dixon.

>>16663106
But they are the best.

>>16663573
Great thread dude! I have no idea why people on this board think it's worth discussing what's the BEST of an author's work.. it's irrelevant. Talk specifically about why you like it you child.

>>16662474
>Against the Day

no

>>16663658
Thank you!

>>16662474
M&D for sure
>>16662888
GR is very tryhard compared to M&D, his mature opus.

>>16663695
>t. hasn't read it

Pynchon was really not born to be a writer. He was meant to be a math guy or a scientist, and even tried to be, though failed for some unspecified reasons, I suspect drugs and the lifestyle they lead to. Anyways, in Gravity's Rainbow he's still finding his footing as a writer; you get the sense that he's very self-conscious of the prose, and afraid of appearing like a pseud to the point that of intentional obscurantism. Mason & Dixon, meanwhile, has none of this affect. Despite the 18th century patois he adopts, the story is much more "readable," much more easily relatable, because he's not trying SO hard to bludgeon you with his knowledge. The result is a human story, with actual emotions, whereas GR was a story about developments and ideas, and abstract things such as sexual trauma. M&D is about human beings. Magnum opus.

>>16664525
There's nothing obscure about GR he just uses fancy words and carefully researched references. With a modicum of effort though the meanings open up to the reader and he's careful to repeat himself in case you may have missed it

>>16662474
I don't reallly now, but I remember the one summer that I went to a shitty countryside with barely no eletric power and all I had was a shitty paperback of Gravity's Rainbow. I remember reading it until it got dark and then looking for the places in the farmhouse which where the brightest just so I could continue to have my mind blown about all this shit.

>>16664543
I assure you the meanings were totally understood understood by me. I was referring to the text, not to my understanding of it. Pseuds like you just fall in love with any old thing you understand. Geniuses like me understand everything we read, and can judge things by more than their referential complexity. Never @ me again.

>>16662474
The Recognitions is his best work

>>16662474
Atd is maybe his 5th best work

>>16664557
nah man the language is beautiful.

>>16664558
Isn't that by that pynchon imitator?

>>16664593
Meant for>>16664558

>>16664604
oh

>>16664604
what?

>>16664593
>>16664604
Nah, just Pynchon’s pseudonym so he can write smut

>>16662474
Why is everyone a philosopher in all his works?

>>16662474
Why do people keep posting the same old pictures of this guy?

>>16664627
people exist who are smarter than you

>>16664547
>shitty paperback
You can sell that version for like $40 at least lol

There is a certain breed of midwit who after having read and understood Gravity's Rainbow at great personal expenditure of effort considers himself thereby edified by his efforts, and regards understanding the work as a special kind of prize. But in fact the work is not that obscure or difficult to understand in 2020, decades after it was written, when much of the esoteric information contained within is now public knowledge and easily accessible on the internet. So the "difficulty" of Gravity's Rainbow is no longer such a difficulty, and its voluminous references are no longer mysterious. What then remains? There is little soul in the book; it's a story about ideas, world historical developments, and, in merely an abstract sense, the trauma imprinted on individuals through their instrumentalization by forces beyond their understanding. No surprise that 4chan /lit/ anons, socially isolated schizoids as they tend to be, latch onto this kind of thing— for them it becomes an icon of their own intelligence, and everyone who disagrees with its status just "doesn't get it."

But Mason & Dixon is the product of a mature artist, not an artist awkwardly stretching into the role. Still there are themes of world-historical developments, the onset of the enlightenment, the beginnings of the abolition of mythology; but now rather than an abstract Slothropian avatar who dissolves into the fabric of the world itself, we have instead two deeply rendered human characters. Pynchon's knowledge is no longer the central character of the story. Instead we have Mason, whose grief is rendered with such profound depth that it's hard to imagine the same author was once content to illustrate trauma through base pornographic episodes in a kind of reacharound way of hitting his themes; and Dixon, whose dying near the end of the book is one of the most wrenching and touching events in the canon.

Only a child chooses GR over M&D. To adults, it's obvious that the latter is the superior work.

>>16664640
But it is always the same voice. Particularly bad in V. Where everybody needs to have some pseudointellectual justification for their way of life, from stencil all the way down to some cart driver in Alexandria.

>>16664713
Who are you trying to impress?
Are you one of those "occult" bros too?

>>16664809
I dunno the narrative itself seems to change voice depending on the characters in action

>>16664809
well, it is a work of fiction after all...

>>16664713
This. Its like Blood Meridian vs Suttree. Edgy teens opt for BM but well read adults know Suttree is the patrician's choice.

>>16664713
there's no shame in being filtered, right?

>>16664839
If its going to be a thinly veiled treatise on author's philosophy why bother with fiction? For that matter I don't think Lot 49 and M&D are bad in this regard but it bugged me a lot in V. I can see why Pynch is said to write caricatures than characters.

>>16664713
What's so bad about wanting to challenge yourself with a book that is notoriously difficult? It seems like you're working through your own imposter's syndrome here. What exactly is it about other young men reading Gravity's Rainbow that upsets you so much? Yeah, we get it, nobody likes pretentious loudmouths who brag about reading a particular book.
It seems like you're just the next step in evolution of the "lit bro" you just described... "those other fools reading haven't read what I read after reading that particular book! Gee, it's like I read up on the subject matter referenced in the book, and in hindsight now have a better understanding of it. Boy, it sure feels good not being a midwit like those other people!"

What's the point in even voicing these grievances?

You idiots, the best one is Inherent Vice.

>>16664832
I'm not an occultist. I speak for those who have ears.
>>16664850
Yes, excellent comparison.
>>16664852
(you)
>>16664897
What gave you the idea that people reading GR upsets me? Obviously I myself have read GR and understood it on a deep level or I would be incapable of the epic post I just wrote. Do you think, anon, that you might just be a little insecure? Maybe you placed too much stock in your own understanding of GR, and now that another anon is flatly claiming that such understanding is nothing notable in itself, you feel your ego is challenged? Listen friend, you're obviously intelligent; give M&D a shot, and you'll see what I'm tolkien about.

>>16664713
>There is a certain

Dropped right then and there. Stop being some pseud faggot who writes like he's mapping out some profound observation.
"Hmmm, well I daresay, there exists a certain cretin imbued with an internet milieu whom would dare crease the spine of GR. Hmph, what preposterous fools! For they know not of the powerful sigils Herr Pynchon has scrawled across those pages!"
You sound like a faggot.

>>16664713
>>16664850
Call me crazy...but I think all four of em are great.

>>16664988
I'm profound, what can I say? Triggering schizoids like yourself is a side effect of my genius. I rake in the (you)s while you seethe.

>>16665027
You're the only schizo here, chudboy.

>>16664999
Of course they are. All 4 are runners for GAN but the discussion is about Magnum opus.
Bug bunny: Mason&Dixon
Sark and chaparral motherfucker: Suttree

>>16664970
Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath whose "awesome" wall of text was immediately seen as the pseud drivel it was, so he hides behind the slight tinge of irony so we believe he was an epix trollolol. It's really sad that there's a fucking em dash in your shit post... that means you wrote out that piece of shit in a word processor, and edited it until you thought it was worthy to post on /lit/. My god, what a loser. In reality, buddy, you're nothing. You're just a spastic nerd. You're not well read, you're not insightful. You take base and brash observations that only someone who was probably bullied can feel, you know, the obvious resentment towards everyone, even the ones who would probably align themselves with you (how dare they encroach on my thing! Books are my thing!).
Truth it, kid, I'm way smarter than you. I'm better looking than you. I'm a better writer than you (been published seven times in various literary journals, hello?), and I have a bigger dick than you.

>>16665096
Alt-0151 on the numpad.

>>16664999
GR is certainly great, I'm only poasting about its relative value to M&D.

>>16665270
>poasting

lmao dumb idiot

>>16663106
he wasn't saying that you slack-jawed fool

>>16664850
Why is Suttree better. Explain yourself, pleb.

For me, it's "V in Love." Why yes, I am a man of taste and sophistication, how could you tell?

>>16664713
This post isn't worth reading.

It may not be his best work, but I’d put forward the idea that AtD is his most purely enjoyable novel from a reading standpoint. It combines the wild n’ wacky digressions from GR with the more character based humor of M&D, which results in imo the supreme comfy novel that you can just pick up and dive into at any point in the story. The absurd length adds to this as well, b/c it doesn’t really matter where or what the Chums of Chance or the Traverse Brothers are doing to enjoy the prose and the ideas posited there in. The Gottingen part kind of drags, but someone less filtered by the math than me would probably find it uproarious.

>>16666532
AtD should have been just the revenge story.That was pure kino.There was one part I dreaded; I think it had to do with spies and drugs

>>16666424
Read them pseud. You will know, but you must be over 30.

I got about 100 pages into V before realizing it sucked dick. GR is challenging but enjoyable and I have high expectations for M&D.

>>16668539
whats not to like about hunting alligators in the NY sewers and stumbling on the rat parish?

>>16664525
I don't think he failed as a STEMfag. He just didn't give a fuck and found his true love instead.

>>16667914
>is over 30
>posts on 4chan
That's not a good thing, friend.

>>16668619
He applied for maths at UCLA but got rejected.

>>16668711
thank god

>>16668711
He's ivy league.

>>16668749
In English lit

>>16664999
trips of truth

>>16669336
yes and?

>>16668559
Yeah wtf, that’s some of Pynch’s all time best writing

>>16664713
>>16664525
>>16664850

Plebs. Nothing after GR is worth reading. M&D is terrible.

>>16668539
What's wrong with V?

>>16670333

nah

>>16670333
Filtered

>>16670253
We are talking about STEM

>>16671191
yes and?

>>16671209
You are a faggot.

>>16671235
yes and?

>>16671235
Yes and?

>>16671235
i know u r but wht am i

>>16671251
Faggot

Gaddis > Pynchon
You can't refute this.

>>16665096

>>16671551
filtered

>>16671565
This is true, I stopped reading your post when you called the other one a wall of text.

>>16671551
lmao that actually triggered you lol

>>16671632
>t. filtered

>>16671632
Different person

>>16671551
>>16671625
>>16671632
>>16671635
>>16671637
filtered. all me btw.

RIP
He will be missed!

Good Christ, Thomas Pynchon fans are fucking retarded...

Why no one else talk about this guy but this board?

>>16671658
Why

>>16671689
how about you go suck a fire hose nozzle you fucking iron deficient faggot

>>16671663
/Lit/ sucks off whatever Bloom says and Bloom was friends with Pynch and sucked him off over Corncob, the lilo and roth(stein).

>>16671703
Why are you seething so hard?

>>16671703
struck a nerve, huh?

>>16671716
nah fuck that Vineland is based

>>16671746
I love Vineland

Hey guys, Tom here... new book is coming out in February, and it's called "Roadside Razor Stand."
It's about a guy named Fez who loves picking strawberries, but his dream is shattered when a rogue unit of fire ants ruins his field. He starts selling wholesale razors in hopes of making enough money for insecticides. This is when he discovered the international cabal of razor executives that aim to destroy his burgeoning empire.
Now it's time for my afternoon nap. Cya!

>>16671780
that's great, Tom :)

>>16671780
Enjoy your nap Tom!

>>16671780
Sleep tight, Tommy,!

>>16671716
Wrong

>>16673869
Wrong

>>16670333
Wrong.

>>16674986
Wrong