/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10987572]

Are there any notable books out there that operate like a 'puzzle for schizos'? I've recently become interested in the idea of schizoanalysis, not really for philosophical musings, but mainly for literary entertainment. The idea of taking a person, a text, a work of art and making it increasingly complex and semiotically interrelated is fascinating to me. Essentially, I'd like a book where each subsequent reading raises as many questions as it clarifies. The best author I can think of as an example is Pynchon. GR is my favorite book. I loved the intense backdrop of paranoia throughout the book, the feeling that you are constantly approaching the solution to some great, hidden conspiracy that you never quite reach. Every time I pick this book up I notice something new, hinting at what lies underneath the life-death parabola, the occult warfare, and the mysterious reversal of cause and effect. There are also the old posts on here that are rumored to be by Pynchon himself, talking about how "Thurn and Taxis" in Lot 49 is a reference to Torquato Tasso, the Italian poet who goes mad (which would imply that the conspiracy Oedipa's following is all in her head) and how Shakespeare was obviously a secret Catholic operating under a pseudonym. For some reason, I find this rabbit hole conspiracy stuff in literature endlessly fascinating. Does anyone have any recommendations? Do you know any other books that would drive a schizo down the rabbit hole?

[Anonymous No.10987584]

Not sure if it's what you're looking for but your post reminds me of this.
Also do you mean schizoanalysis in the Deleuzian sense?

[Anonymous No.10987596]

>>10987584
This is an excellent suggestion.

Pic related is a more obvious one, but even harder to tackle.
As the man himself said : "There is no route out of the maze. The maze shifts as you move through it, because it is alive."

[Anonymous No.10987627]

I empathize with this interest. I find reading Ulysses comparable to reading Gravity's Rainbow as far as the intricate interconnected structure and sense of constant revelation goes, but that book is obviously a lot less dark and fantastical than Gravity's Rainbow. Still, read closely it is a rabbit hole like nothing else. The interaction of symbols, recurring phrases, and fragmentary interconnected narratives gives you more than enough to chew on.

[Anonymous No.10987659]

>tfw too much of a brainlet to read Gravity's Rainbow

He'll bring up some character from a much earlier part of the book and it's like expected you remember it. I guess I could like take notes while reading but I'm not that invested in the activity

[Anonymous No.10987674]

>>10987584
I think I am, but I'm not too educated on the subject to say that I'm really using the term correctly with any authority. If I'm understanding this right, where psychoanalysis attempts to explain a broad range of thought/behavior/emotion by reducing them to expressions of a few (somewhat) unconscious functions, schizoanalysis explains the same with increasing complexity, whereas each "explanation" becomes convoluted and conspiratorial. I understand schizoanalysis as being a sort of deduction to counter psychoanalysis' induction, except free of theoretical constraints that would allow you to approach anything resembling a conclusion. Does that sound right? if so, I'm interested in discussing books that you could say had "potential for schizoanalysis," or maybe just something where I look like pic related by the end of reading.

[Anonymous No.10987686]

>>10987659
I didn't get a lot of that stuff until my second read, and I still don't understand it all. It's a beautiful book though, something to read over and over.

[Anonymous No.10987718]

>>10987572
/lit/ is a high iq board lol

[Anonymous No.10987772]

>>10987572
Get your teeth into Twin Peaks mate

[Anonymous No.10987790]

>>10987659
OP here. I struggled with this a bit too, but one thing that helped me was realizing that this "narrating about something that you feel like you're expected to know about but don't" is part of his style and intentionally confusing. If you've ever been extremely sleep deprived or done your fair share of drugs (specifically weed), you'll notice that, especially when a section references dope or sodium amytal, Pynchon's writing style kind of mirrors being in that kind of foggy, drugged up state, where you're wondering "did I forget something? does this have something to do with that other thing?" You're definitely not supposed to "get" everything that appears to be a reference to something that has an actual concrete meaning, which leads to this sort of schizoanalysis thing that I mentioned.

For example, take the phrase "You never did the Kenosha Kid," which appears in the book many times, each with different punctuation that gives the phrase different meanings. At first, when mentioned along with the Charleston and other obscure old-timey dances, you are expected to believe this is just another out-of-date cultural reference you don't understand, but with each subsequent use, "The Kenosha Kid" comes to refer to either a fictional dance or a person, maybe multiple persons, sometimes interchangeably. Is it a delivery room worker? a cowboy? a pilot writing words in the sky? possibly someone involved in the conspiracy or arrested because of it? or maybe Slothrop himself? It's never really clarified, it just becomes increasingly convoluted. Rather than getting hung up on each thing you find confusing, you've got to focus on enjoying the confusion itself and where it leads. Once you get into the "flow" of this, the book becomes very entertaining, and if you read it again you'll pick up little bits that seemed to reference nothing important the first time.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001288.html

[Anonymous No.10987871]

>>10987584
>>10987596
Both of these sound really interesting to me. I'll have to check them out, thanks for the suggestions.
>>10987772
Already am, thanks. Recently started the newer season.

[Anonymous No.10987882]

>>10987572
finnegans wake is pretty much your holy grail when it comes to this stuff man. its an extremely complex interrelated book written by a man probably on the brink of schizophrenia where every word is filled with sometimes up to 4 or 5 different references.

[Anonymous No.10988991]

>>10987572
The famous Pynchonposts were nothing more than half-baked, half-informed theorizing. Ironically, given the embedded criticism of an effete academia, any actual exposure to academic peer review would debunk the claims about Shakespeare instantly.
There are official records of Shakespeare's birth and marriage, so unless he decided to concoct a pen name referencing a 12th-century English pope from the moment he emerged from the womb, the connection is baseless.

[Anonymous No.10989150]

You want to read meme Wolfe.

[Anonymous No.10989189]

>>10987790
Thanks for the response...I think I'm too fixated on my school mindset of trying to fully comprehend everything I read and that's getting in the way of me enjoying it

[Anonymous No.10989373]

>>10987572
this to a T.

[Anonymous No.10989631]

>>10989150
You can see the folds in the collar. 0/10 use the fuligin setting on MS paint next time.

[Anonymous No.10991048]

>>10989373
This sounds great