So they were frauds all along...

[Anonymous No.23253580]

All of that blather from the 60s onwards generations about le "searing indictment of our unthinking status obsessed TV worshipping society, running on fear perpetuated by le media moguls"...

All of those "frequently hilarious comedies of manners where the esteemed Lady Gumdrop avoids resting on her laurels as the scandalous ne'er-do-well of Poppycock Lane"...

All of that "Pynchonian paranoia about the CIA *gasp* helping American companies sell more *eek!* cigarettes in WW2... and... and... *hyperventilates in to a brown paper bag due to sheer shock, walls closing in* helping American companies forecast strikes by fat Irishmen"...

All of that "no holds barred muscular detective literature where the fictional Jack Ditch rubs shoulders with JFK and Eisenhower, lifting the lid on shocking events such as fictional rape and fictional murder and REAL consensual sex outside of marriage. You'll NEVER see the 30s/40s/50s/60s the same ever again, pussy!"...

Aaaand, it all amounted to nothing.

Aaaand, when clownworld reached its peak, all of those great thinkers never raised their voices ever again.

Aaaand, when media and the printing press stopped being centralised, all of these hard hitting heavy punching Hulk smashing She Hulk twerking Thinkers(TM) had not a peep to say, apart from some embarrassing minor novels that shoehorned in strained references to Metal Gear Solid or the barrel from Sonic 3.

Aaaand, when the US worships blacks and promotes child mutilation, not a single peep was heard.

Aaaand, suddenly mass media control and centralisation is no longer very scary when you want it to happen.

Woah... That all certainly amounted to something worthwhile...

[Anonymous No.23253586]

More worthwhile than your thread.

[Anonymous No.23253609]

>>23253580
Too true.

[Anonymous No.23253629]

>>23253580
Brutal. I applaud you OP. Pynchonfags will struggle to cope with this.

[Anonymous No.23253637]

>>23253629
Why would Pynchon fags stuggle to cope with a reductive summary of a book that most Pynchon fags don't even like?

[Anonymous No.23253681]

>>23253586
I really enjoyed reading it. OP has a point.
>>23253580
Well done, OP.

[Anonymous No.23253739]

>>23253580
Leave Pynchon alone bro he's 80
He probably doesn't have the energy to deal with all the bullshit of clownworld
Hell, I'm 20 and I don't have the energy to deal with it
The world is just to fucked up to comment on
The world parodies itself

[Anonymous No.23253744]

>>23253681
>OP has a point.
Ignoring context and treating a novel like a bullet point list is not a point unless the point is one OP is making about himself.

[Anonymous No.23253771]

>>23253744
He's making a point about courage and about attitude. The novel is secondary. The silence from these former firebrands in the face of real insanity is deafening; it makes their work seem milquetoast in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.23253813]

>>23253580
TRVKE

[Anonymous No.23253823]

>>23253637
>>23253580
>>23253739
>>23253681

What are y'all talking about? GR isn't about that at all

>>23253771
Vineland is being adapted for MAGA times kek

[Anonymous No.23253858]

>>23253771
The novel is not secondary if you are using it as proof of something. You can be retardedly reductive about any novel, all that proves is a lack of comprehension or some mental deficiency.

[Anonymous No.23253925]

>why isn't this 86 year old novelist screeching about trannies on social media?
because he has dignity. the idea that art is just a pretext to get a platform and become social media dipshit #3204802 screaming about "issues" is in itself peak clownworld thinking. smartphone-raised unpersons will never understand because they can't comprehend existence beyond a public exchange of "takes" that are in the end pure fashion, not connected to anything real, just little floating images you wear like feathers before they fall off

[Anonymous No.23253932]

>>23253580
Kek

[Anonymous No.23253943]

>>23253858
>The novel is not secondary if you are using it as proof of something.
He isn't trying to prove anything. Calm down. The novel in this case is window dressing for a more general point.

[Anonymous No.23253945]

>>23253771
literal troon propaganda tactics, slightly adapted. "the silence of celebrity X on the issue of trans rights speaks volumes. by failing to loudly endorse trans healthcare for children they have proved themselves a fascist." except you don't actually have the media power behind the statement to make it work, making you a kind of tranny cargo cultist

[Anonymous No.23253968]

>>23253945
How is this so hard for you to understand? A novel that references the CIA daring to help Americans sell more cigarettes now appears juvenile in an era where we must contend with children being put on puberty blockers. That's OP's whole point - these counter culturalists said nothing and amounted to nothing because they were content poking fun at the easy issues. He's not asking Pynchon to now get on twitter and decry the trans movement. That's irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.23253971]

Honestly, yeah. And without even reading the thread I’m sure the seething fanboys are already after you.

[Anonymous No.23253975]

>>23253968
False pretenses false conclusions

[Anonymous No.23253984]

>>23253968
Yeah this. Postmodernism is a failed mindset. Mocking hypocrisy never stops it. Metamodernism failed too.

[Anonymous No.23253987]

>>23253975
What pretense is false here?

[Anonymous No.23253993]

>>23253987
That's not what GR is about my dood

[Anonymous No.23253999]

>>23253993
I never said it was.

[Anonymous No.23254004]

>>23253999
Wherever you go, there you are.

[Anonymous No.23254020]

>>23253971
I even like his books, but he has the weirdest set of dickriders I’ve ever seen on here. If you say even the slightest negative comment, no matter how inocuous (you could even say something like “Bleeding Edge isn’t as good as Ulysses”), they’ll swarm. I’ve never figured out why.

[Anonymous No.23254038]

>>23253968
>He's not asking Pynchon to now get on twitter and decry the trans movement. That's irrelevant.
you are correct there, there is no political aim in this kind of babble, it's a cover-up for a basic and incidentally very troon-like, ie envy-motivated, desire to deprive: it's not that writing "this writer didn't amount to anything because he failed to stigmatize discord tranny grooming in 1974" is supposed to produce any change in the writer or trannies or the planet earth at all, you're really after the endless narcissist high of making others' achievements "not count" by any means necessary. some guy did something, you did nothing, but it really is all the same, you reassure yourself, because blah blah trannies. but the amount of mental energy put into the "blah blah" part can be staggering sometimes

[Anonymous No.23254042]

>>23253943
Trying to make people out to be seething does not make you seem correct and reasonable and does not mean they are seething. Your examples fail to support what you suggest unless you ignore the context provided by the novel which is a retarded thing to do, doubly so to do it on a literature forum.

[Anonymous No.23254065]

>>23254038
>if you criticise Pynchon, you're just jealous >:(
This dude >>23254020 was bang on it seems. Pynchon super fans have the mental wherewithal of your average 12 year old. And I myself like Pynchon! Unlike you, however, I'm willing to discuss the impact of his work critically.

[Anonymous No.23254084]

>>23254065
Hi Jon

[Anonymous No.23254096]

>>23254038
>"this writer didn't amount to anything because he failed to stigmatize discord tranny grooming in 1974"
Again, nobody is saying this. The claim is that, by nature, Pynchon feels comfortable criticising only the easy issues. There were issues in the sixties and seventies, issues that have nothing to do with transgenderism, that Pynchon likewise never really commented on in any great sense. OP's point is that he forms part of a body of gifted writers whose works nevertheless fail to actually criticise, if you like, the really dark stuff. Now that the dark stuff has all but taken over, their writing appears all the more vapid in hindsight. Once more: this has nothing to do with OP asking Pynchon to create a substack where he owns the libs by pointing out that men are men and women are women.

[Anonymous No.23254099]

>>23254096
Go on

[Anonymous No.23254102]

>>23254096
what are some e.gs of difficult issues from 60s/70s writers ignored? not that anon just following this thread with interest

[Anonymous No.23254103]

>>23254065
i didn't say "jealous," i said envious. that difference, and the fact that you immediately seek to obfuscate it, is the crux of the matter: you don't want his "impact" for yourself, or for somebody else, you just need him to not have it. that's why these types of threads are never advancing some other name to replace pynchon or nabokov or joyce or whoever has you seething at the moment with another writer you feel is more worthy, it's really just about trawling through all the big names until you have made them all "not count" in one way or another. it's really very tiresome. "i actually like him, you see, only..." only something about him chafes your little gremlin soul, and he has to be made to not count or the gremlin won't fall asleep.

[Anonymous No.23254124]

>>23254096
>there's really some very important stuff, which by the way that stuff was really important, oh boy all that important stuff that they failed to deal with, the stuff; if only their books dealt with that important stuff, now - that would have been something...
what possible reason could you have for writing like this other that you know you'll be laughed at when you spell it out

[Anonymous No.23254128]

>>23254103
>you CAN'T criticise Pynchon here!
>anyone who does has a complex!!
>because... because I say so!!!
blow off

[Anonymous No.23254136]

>>23254128
and yet the gremlin stirs, and all your other threads about other writers are the same

[Anonymous No.23254142]

>>23254124
Ken Kesey arguably does a better job of dealing with the rotten underside of America. Is Pynchon's prose fantastic? Yes. Obviously. But Kesey was more willing, and perhaps better able, to tackle the really nasty stuff and do it via a narrative that remained compelling.

[Anonymous No.23254146]

>>23254096
>works nevertheless fail to actually criticise, if you like, the really dark stuff
I agree with the sentiment of OP to a certain extent, but I think you're going a little far here. It's clear in novels like GR he knows the direction the military-industrial intelligence agencies are taking the country. The Zone is full of Ally-sanctioned depravity from pedophilia to drug dealing to murder of civilians etc., and then if any of the people carrying out these atrocities are found to be useful to the arising neoliberal world order, they are safely Paperclipped to a winning nation. Even if Pynchon didn't write specifically about the darkness we find ourselves in now, it's clear from his novels that he knew this darkness was being sown.

[Anonymous No.23254155]

>>23254136
I didn't make this thread.

[Anonymous No.23254157]

Why would the shitlib Pynchon feel uncomfortable living in the shitlib utopia that is the present? From the perspective of the liberals of his generation, practically everything became better than it used to be, the only problem they see is that the revolution is still not finished.

Your point about him not speaking up about the US worshipping blacks becomes especially funny considering his infamous (around here, at least) essay about the Watts riots from 1966.

[Anonymous No.23254168]

>>23253580
We don’t worship blacks, first off you seem to confuse our aristocracy with the peasantry, and second of all it comes off as a weird projection on your part. Who was the first woke country? It certainly wasn’t us. I mean “Sweden Yes”, a mimetic phrase that has been gleefully memoryholed by nearly everyone, hmm I wonder why? Certainly they aren’t referring to us, are they? Could it be?

[Anonymous No.23254186]

>>23254142
Bruh he was writing ABOUT Ken kesey

[Anonymous No.23254243]

>>23254186
What?

[Anonymous No.23254252]

>>23254243
Haha yeah

[Anonymous No.23254274]

What a pathetic thread.

[Anonymous No.23254281]

Harsh truths

[Anonymous No.23254282]

>>23254274
What a pathetic comment.

[Anonymous No.23254999]

>>23253580
>Aaaand, when the US worships blacks
Pynchon has no problem with that. He wrote an anti-racist piece for NYT.

[Anonymous No.23255069]

>>23253580
>Aaaand

[Anonymous No.23255110]

>>23254020
Add DFW to that list. And in film it’s Nolan and Tarantino that have those easily offended fanboys. Not sure what those four have in common to cause it.

[Anonymous No.23255282]

>>23253580
>the barrel from Sonic 3.
what did it ever do to you

[Anonymous No.23256548]

I’ve never read Pynchon, can someone explain how this thread caused so much seethe?

[Anonymous No.23256736]

>>23256548
Mmm no.

[Anonymous No.23256748]

>>23253580
all those claims stem from the entertainment industry, which is the heart of the republic, along with the banking industry.


That's because this defiance is the fuel of their republic since day one. It turns out that caring about the republic is exactly what is required, not caring+loving. Protesting made legal is the genius trait of the bourgeois. protesting became a venting mechanism where all the atheists could virtue signal during the day, which is exactly what they lacked after killing morality.
Also the people still want more civil servants and more democracy in their life. Nobody protest to have lower taxes, lower public servants. What protesters always want is ''give me more money'', ''public servants do something about X !!!!!''
Distrustful people still spend their free time watching the news from the entertainment industry and caring about what servants say as if it's super important. They even call this ''being educated'' lol. That's the heart of the republic.

[Anonymous No.23256826]

>>23256548
There’s a post about pynchon fanboys seething. Just ctrl + f it.

[Anonymous No.23257140]

>>23253984
Metamodernism will save us when it stops being suppressed. The people yearn for clarity and sincerity. It won’t be long before the dam breaks.

[Anonymous No.23257239]

>>23256748
HATE DEMOCRACY