books bought today

[milly balgeary]

mccabe doesn't know what he's speakin on, V. is certainly the man's finest novel in terms of evenness and strength and coherence of vision. Gravity's Rainbow is amazing, but when he wrote V. he was much more in control, I think.

So, yeah, V. is as good an introduction as you're likely to find. Lot 49 is alright, but it's not my favorite.

V is an extraordinary book but Pynchon texts cannot be discerned by values like "eveness", "strength", "coherence of vision". Why not just separate them into distinct family members. Uncle V. Aunt Vinelands. Duddy GR. Mummy COL49. Baby Mason.

A much better way to classify is in interest and difficulty.

V is the second least interesting, therefore the second most difficult.

edit. thus, V is NOT a good introduction to Pynchon. Unless you like yawning a lot.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I'm reading the Keep. I'm not too fond of it, but that's only because it's one of those books with really unlikable characters.

eh, i'm sorry to hear that. i don't tend to like books full of unlikable characters either (this was why i hated "how to be good" by nick hornby). but i'm gonna give it a chance nonetheless--the very short excerpt i've read was fascinating, so hopefully that'll be enough to get me through the unlikable-character parts.

[nonotyet]

TSKS, I don't think you're going to like Look At Me if you like The Keep. They are worlds apart--Look At Me was good, but it was kind of also in the Girly Fiction Ghetto. (It's about models.)  The Keep is her attempt to break out of that place, or at least the review in the Onion said so.

[milly balgeary]

I'm reading the Keep. I'm not too fond of it, but that's only because it's one of those books with really unlikable characters.

eh, i'm sorry to hear that. i don't tend to like books full of unlikable characters either (this was why i hated "how to be good" by nick hornby). but i'm gonna give it a chance nonetheless--the very short excerpt i've read was fascinating, so hopefully that'll be enough to get me through the unlikable-character parts.

Take into consideration that I've decided recently my favoritest kinds of characters are those who aren't misanthropic. I like slightly dull characters that things happen to. The characters in The Keep are the sort that seem slightly real, and have unpleasant thoughts and unpleasant reactions and do things without any real reason like real people. It's an impressive book though, and her sentences wave to each other like Chuck P's whose books and characters I'm not fond of either (but that guy can write!!!)

Even if like me, you have little sympathy for modern-era misanthropes (It's absurd but I like the misanthropes of yesteryear because they seem very quaint) there's a lot of good to say about The Keep. It's better than most fiction.

Edit. Better because not only does she have talent but she doesn't point it out to you on each page. I.E Special Topics in Calamity Physics. She has talent, but keeps her talent in the story. The story is a doozy.

[Andrew_TSKS]

TSKS, I don't think you're going to like Look At Me if you like The Keep. They are worlds apart--Look At Me was good, but it was kind of also in the Girly Fiction Ghetto. (It's about models.)  The Keep is her attempt to break out of that place, or at least the review in the Onion said so.

oh man, you have no idea how much stuff from the Girly Fiction Ghetto that i actually do encounter and read. i'm able to cover my tracks because it's stuff that i either borrow from my store or get as promotional copies, again from my store, but dude... it's there. it's DEFINITELY there.

also, the fact that "the believer" was willing to cover her stuff and discuss her earlier work in detail makes me think that "look at me" has to have more going on than, say, "the girl's guide to hunting and fishing". or, actually, something in that vein, but worse--that one wasn't half bad.

oh, and milly, your explanation makes me feel a lot better. heh. thanks.

[old kentucky shark]

the former for my enjoyment, the latter for my typography class, and even though it was like $1 plus shipping it's still ridiculous how ugly every word in this book is

[tops wobbling]

Does "borrowed" count? I went to the public library today:


A close friend with good taste recommended this one. I do hope it makes me laugh.


I've been on a real Basement Tapes kick lately, just in general.

[elpollodiablo]

mccabe doesn't know what he's speakin on, V. is certainly the man's finest novel in terms of evenness and strength and coherence of vision. Gravity's Rainbow is amazing, but when he wrote V. he was much more in control, I think.

So, yeah, V. is as good an introduction as you're likely to find. Lot 49 is alright, but it's not my favorite.

V is an extraordinary book but Pynchon texts cannot be discerned by values like "eveness", "strength", "coherence of vision". Why not just separate them into distinct family members. Uncle V. Aunt Vinelands. Duddy GR. Mummy COL49. Baby Mason.

A much better way to classify is in interest and difficulty.

V is the second least interesting, therefore the second most difficult.

edit. thus, V is NOT a good introduction to Pynchon. Unless you like yawning a lot.

milly doesn't know what he's speakin on, either, but he's pretty good at hiding it.


Well. Not that good, in this instance.

[milly balgeary]

mccabe doesn't know what he's speakin on, V. is certainly the man's finest novel in terms of evenness and strength and coherence of vision. Gravity's Rainbow is amazing, but when he wrote V. he was much more in control, I think.

So, yeah, V. is as good an introduction as you're likely to find. Lot 49 is alright, but it's not my favorite.

V is an extraordinary book but Pynchon texts cannot be discerned by values like "eveness", "strength", "coherence of vision". Why not just separate them into distinct family members. Uncle V. Aunt Vinelands. Duddy GR. Mummy COL49. Baby Mason.

A much better way to classify is in interest and difficulty.

V is the second least interesting, therefore the second most difficult.

edit. thus, V is NOT a good introduction to Pynchon. Unless you like yawning a lot.

milly doesn't know what he's speakin on, either, but he's pretty good at hiding it.


Well. Not that good, in this instance.

I'm taking notes. Why don't you tell my why V, which is a very difficult book, is a good introduction to a very difficult writer - in your own words.

[elpollodiablo]

It introduces the newcomer to a lot of the thematic ground Pynchon covers in his magnum opus: entropy, object fetishism, the quest for meaning in a decadent and outwardly meaningless world, the new "preterite" spirituality of the 20th century, etc. There are also recurring characters and subject matter (Pig Bodine, Weissman, the Herero) which I believe resonate much more fully in Gravity's Rainbow when the reader has already encountered them in V. V. is also a good introduction to Pynchon stylistically; the bathetic humor and analeptic sequences and shifting narrative viewpoints are a little easier to tackle in this novel--in my opinion.

This is, after all, just my opinion though. If you found this novel uninteresting and GR to be interesting, then I can see how you'd call it the more difficult introduction... To me, GR was like the exploded psyche of the whole damn post-war Western world. Fucking amazing? Yes. A good starting point if you're looking to ease into the work of one of the century's most difficult authors? I didn't think so. I wish I had read V. first, so that's the advice I always give.

Sorry if this post is a little less than cogent, but I'm typing it between check-ins and studying for this fucking German exam.

[milly balgeary]

Elpollo, our departure is when you suggest people read critically. I think people want to be entertained. I believe it's a small percentage who pick a book to analyze it. Most people just want to have a good time and they like reading, and if they are willing to spend a couple months digesting a Thomas Pynchon it might as well be GR
 
If someone asks you to recommend a Melville you would probably recommend Moby Dick because it's his best work. Then a newcomer is going to say "I like this" or "I hate this" to Moby Dick; if they like it they'll seek out his other books, if they don't -- they will write Melville off and spend their time reading something more to their taste.

I guess I think if someone reads to comprehend the author's themes and intentions, they don't need a starting point. They read for different reasons and they just pick one to start with because they're going to read them all eventually. On the other hand, someone who is just curious about Pynchon, deserves to start with his best work.

[mountmccabe]

Miles is talking some sense here.  And I guess most folks that are looking to read Pynchon kinda have an idea of what they're getting into.  My thinking was that GR has the bigger payoff so it's going to hook the reader more deeply.  That is probably the wrong strategy with Pynchon.

Maybe it's, if/when necessary, appetizers like "Entropy" or Lot 49 and then (or, first) V to tear the mind apart as a prep to GR which dutifully reshapes reality for ya.

[milly balgeary]

mountmccabe, thanks for posting that. you brought up something sort of important when trying to talk about what books one should read first for so and so difficult author. it's how you're introduced to the books.

[elpollodiablo]

Elpollo, our departure is when you suggest people read critically. I think people want to be entertained. I believe it's a small percentage who pick a book to analyze it. Most people just want to have a good time and they like reading, and if they are willing to spend a couple months digesting a Thomas Pynchon it might as well be GR
 
If someone asks you to recommend a Melville you would probably recommend Moby Dick because it's his best work. Then a newcomer is going to say "I like this" or "I hate this" to Moby Dick; if they like it they'll seek out his other books, if they don't -- they will write Melville off and spend their time reading something more to their taste.

I guess I think if someone reads to comprehend the author's themes and intentions, they don't need a starting point. They read for different reasons and they just pick one to start with because they're going to read them all eventually. On the other hand, someone who is just curious about Pynchon, deserves to start with his best work.

millster, you're making a lot of sense here, but I don't think our different approaches to reading are really all that different. They definitely aren't mutually exclusive. I think you're right in asserting that many people who are going to make an attempt to read these books are doing so out of a genuine interest in entertainment--maybe that's misguided, maybe not (a lot of the recondite stuff in both novels can and does make for terribly unentertaining reading, in my estimation). But, just because someone sits down to read with the intention of being entertained doesn't mean that they won't also tacitly come away with some critical analysis as regards the work's symbolism, thematic elements, stylistic flair, etc. Right? And it goes the other way: someone approaching one of these huge postmodern bricks with a strictly academic interest probably can't help but be entertained, especially when it comes to Pynchon. I think you often make the mistake of thinking that reading for entertainment means that one can't look beyond the surface and take away something deeper and more meaningful than just a good yarn or a laugh--and I often make the inverse mistake, thinking that if you're reading for pleasure or fun, you can't possibly be making an attempt to grapple with the more "important" aspects of a text.

Right?

[elpollodiablo]

Maybe it's, if/when necessary, appetizers like "Entropy" or Lot 49 and then (or, first) V to tear the mind apart as a prep to GR which dutifully reshapes reality for ya.

I really think "Entropy" is essential in any kind of introduction to Pynchon, regardless of which novel you read first. Thanks for bringing that up.

[Murk2.0]

I read them in this order: 49, GR, V. Not read: Vineland (it sucks; I know this w/out having bothered to read it), M&D.

V. is a good intro, but 49 is obv. better. So smooth going down.

OT: I bought lots of books recently, some of them: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate; Christopher Priest's The Prestige; Steve Fuller's The Intellectual; James Sallis's Drive; Ian Hacking's Historical Ontology; Christopher Ricks's Dylan's Visions of Sin; Charles Olson's Maximus Poems; The New Negro.

& even if you've heard it all before, you shd buy Hugo Chavez's favorite book, which he brandished at the UN. Good for him. Nice to see Chomsky at #1 on Amazon.

[milly balgeary]

Elpollo, our departure is when you suggest people read critically. I think people want to be entertained. I believe it's a small percentage who pick a book to analyze it. Most people just want to have a good time and they like reading, and if they are willing to spend a couple months digesting a Thomas Pynchon it might as well be GR
 
If someone asks you to recommend a Melville you would probably recommend Moby Dick because it's his best work. Then a newcomer is going to say "I like this" or "I hate this" to Moby Dick; if they like it they'll seek out his other books, if they don't -- they will write Melville off and spend their time reading something more to their taste.

I guess I think if someone reads to comprehend the author's themes and intentions, they don't need a starting point. They read for different reasons and they just pick one to start with because they're going to read them all eventually. On the other hand, someone who is just curious about Pynchon, deserves to start with his best work.

millster, you're making a lot of sense here, but I don't think our different approaches to reading are really all that different. They definitely aren't mutually exclusive. I think you're right in asserting that many people who are going to make an attempt to read these books are doing so out of a genuine interest in entertainment--maybe that's misguided, maybe not (a lot of the recondite stuff in both novels can and does make for terribly unentertaining reading, in my estimation). But, just because someone sits down to read with the intention of being entertained doesn't mean that they won't also tacitly come away with some critical analysis as regards the work's symbolism, thematic elements, stylistic flair, etc. Right? And it goes the other way: someone approaching one of these huge postmodern bricks with a strictly academic interest probably can't help but be entertained, especially when it comes to Pynchon. I think you often make the mistake of thinking that reading for entertainment means that one can't look beyond the surface and take away something deeper and more meaningful than just a good yarn or a laugh--and I often make the inverse mistake, thinking that if you're reading for pleasure or fun, you can't possibly be making an attempt to grapple with the more "important" aspects of a text.

Right?

sounds like we look at it differently. i try not to pay attention to literary elements when i'm reading and try to focus on how to make my experience more resonant. i just like to read and always have and one of my pet peeves is noticing stuff that takes me back to reality. that's me though.

[milly balgeary]

I read them in this order: 49, GR, V. Not read: Vineland (it sucks; I know this w/out having bothered to read it), M&D.

V. is a good intro, but 49 is obv. better. So smooth going down.

OT: I bought lots of books recently, some of them: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate; Christopher Priest's The Prestige; Steve Fuller's The Intellectual; James Sallis's Drive; Ian Hacking's Historical Ontology; Christopher Ricks's Dylan's Visions of Sin; Charles Olson's Maximus Poems; The New Negro.

& even if you've heard it all before, you shd buy Hugo Chavez's favorite book, which he brandished at the UN. Good for him. Nice to see Chomsky at #1 on Amazon.

that priest book is pretty delightful. it's good to see he is getting some love with the movie on the way. is it a new edition or the same off-white pos?

[Murk2.0]

Not the new movie PB cover, which looks pretty lame. I found an older copy. Milly, have you read Jess Walter's Citizen Vince? Or John Crowley's Little, Big?

[milly balgeary]

Not the new movie PB cover, which looks pretty lame. I found an older copy. Milly, have you read Jess Walter's Citizen Vince? Or John Crowley's Little, Big?

big crowley fan. i have a great copy of little, big, that came with beasts and engine summer. it's the ny quality paperback club edition. i bought it at an overstock sale 4-5 yrs ago where it was hidden among the normal michael cunninghams and tc boyles. it cost me a dollar. it was worth like a hundred fifty bucks 4-5 yrs ago, of course, i've poured coffee on it and apparently dropped it in muddy water and spilled beer and rubbed it with cheetoh prints so i suspect no one would want it but me now. that suits me great! i love it.

haven't read any jess walter. no fiction for this man right now. i'm on a "break" because i noticed that except for a few, i was beginning to hate the authors of the books i was reading by about five pages in when usually you're supposed to get absorbed with the book; instead of that i was slamming books closed.

[elpollodiablo]

Not read: Vineland (it sucks; I know this w/out having bothered to read it)

You are so fucking wrong it hurts, but really that statement is so hilarious and self-defeating that it invalidates whatever you're saying. Taking that sort of attitude w/r/t any novel/album/film/piece of art/experience makes you lose at life. Just so you know.

[elpollodiablo]

Elpollo, our departure is when you suggest people read critically. I think people want to be entertained. I believe it's a small percentage who pick a book to analyze it. Most people just want to have a good time and they like reading, and if they are willing to spend a couple months digesting a Thomas Pynchon it might as well be GR
 
If someone asks you to recommend a Melville you would probably recommend Moby Dick because it's his best work. Then a newcomer is going to say "I like this" or "I hate this" to Moby Dick; if they like it they'll seek out his other books, if they don't -- they will write Melville off and spend their time reading something more to their taste.

I guess I think if someone reads to comprehend the author's themes and intentions, they don't need a starting point. They read for different reasons and they just pick one to start with because they're going to read them all eventually. On the other hand, someone who is just curious about Pynchon, deserves to start with his best work.

millster, you're making a lot of sense here, but I don't think our different approaches to reading are really all that different. They definitely aren't mutually exclusive. I think you're right in asserting that many people who are going to make an attempt to read these books are doing so out of a genuine interest in entertainment--maybe that's misguided, maybe not (a lot of the recondite stuff in both novels can and does make for terribly unentertaining reading, in my estimation). But, just because someone sits down to read with the intention of being entertained doesn't mean that they won't also tacitly come away with some critical analysis as regards the work's symbolism, thematic elements, stylistic flair, etc. Right? And it goes the other way: someone approaching one of these huge postmodern bricks with a strictly academic interest probably can't help but be entertained, especially when it comes to Pynchon. I think you often make the mistake of thinking that reading for entertainment means that one can't look beyond the surface and take away something deeper and more meaningful than just a good yarn or a laugh--and I often make the inverse mistake, thinking that if you're reading for pleasure or fun, you can't possibly be making an attempt to grapple with the more "important" aspects of a text.

Right?

sounds like we look at it differently. i try not to pay attention to literary elements when i'm reading and try to focus on how to make my experience more resonant. i just like to read and always have and one of my pet peeves is noticing stuff that takes me back to reality. that's me though.

You deliberately avoid anything in a novel that makes you think? Not being a dick; this is a serious question.

[Murk2.0]

You are so fucking wrong it hurts, but really that statement is so hilarious and self-defeating that it invalidates whatever you're saying. Taking that sort of attitude w/r/t any novel/album/film/piece of art/experience makes you lose at life. Just so you know.

Someone get Pollo an irony canary, stat.

[elpollodiablo]

Whateva, playa. I may be full of hate, but I'll give anything one chance.

[mountmccabe]

V. is a good intro, but 49 is obv. better. So smooth going down.

How's the canary doing here?  I mean, it used to be that I only used "obviously" in an ironic sense and the "smooth" when applied to Lot 49 sounds so wrong you gotta be joking, right?

It was my intro, too, though.  And, I suppose, in a way, maybe that's acceptable.  If I had read Lot 49 after any of the real novels I would've dismissed it as the rough bit of work it is... whereas now I can cherish memories of loving it back when I didn't know anything better.


Sorta OT, Amazon now lists December 5 for Against the Day.  This was pushed back, right?