books bought today

[andronicus]

Ian Hacking's Historical Ontology

This is pretty great.

[elpollodiablo]

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?

I thought it was originally slated for December?

Saw the new Danielewski book the other day. A guy had it at this meeting I was at. We were doing those awful round-the-table icebreakers, and old dude mentiones he's "reading the new book by Poe's brother." I rofled.
Flipped through the novel. Looked sort of intriguing but, like House of Leaves, really gimmicky. The story is told from the perspective of two different characters, simultaneously and on the same page. Basically half the page is one character, the other half, printed upside down, is the second. Looks like a pain in the ass to read. While Mr. Poe's Brother's publisher probably loves him, I have to guess that the guys doing the typesetting for his books hate his friggin guts.

[Murk2.0]

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.

OH SO WRONG. The Crying of Lot 49 is a masterpiece - the wrongest person on the subject is Mr. P himself. Authors so often wrong abt their own work - Yeats, Stevens, &c. & it is smooth & LOTS of things are obvious, this being only the merest example among them. Like how using expressions like "the real novels" gives the game away.

& I did give Vineland a chance. 20 pages of subpar Tom Robbins (who's already a subpar Kurt Vonnegut, who's already a subpar . . .) is 20 pages too many.

[elpollodiablo]

I think that perhaps it is you that are wrong, for the reasons I've already detailed. But, whatever. I'm so sick of squabbling over what is essentially a matter of taste; milly and I have been round and round this track MANY times.

[Murk2.0]

Well, yeah, if the subject's whether a given novel's any good, obviously neither of us is "wrong." But it's more fun to say so. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. I'M RIGHT. HA HA HA.

[elpollodiablo]

DAMN YOUSE, TWO-OH

[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.

I don't know if it's as cut and dry as all that. Who knows where we go when we read something we like. Or what we think, and if we think.

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

[milly balgeary]

elpollo, I don't know if it's as cut and dry as all that. Who knows where we go when we read something we like. Or what we think, and if we think.

[elpollodiablo]

I don't follow.

[milly balgeary]

Now see, if you pick up a book and really get into it, doesn't matter what it is, the state you enter isn't one an honest man would describe as thoughtful. Not to sound like a candyass but you enter a dream with the author and you don't worry about how bad last night's date went or how that pimple on your nose is definitely starting to suppercate and the stuff coming out isn't flavorful. You don't worry at all because you're in a relationship now, however brief, with the author's imagination. If a book isn't good enough in my experience, that's when you start um, reading the text and treating it as a text. Stuff like symbolism is there to deepen the text, not to make you treat it like Where's Waldo. Not that I'm saying that's what you're doing, so no offense intended, but if a book works it's because those deeper illusions are hitting you like ping pong ball from lever to lever, juggling you, keeping you from losing your ball in the pinball dungeon at the bottom of the machine because that means they failed and lost you. Reading a book you haven't ever read before critically is like taking apart that particular pinball machine's mechanical parts and laying them out and studying them and wondering how they fit together. Maybe a second read, if that's your thing. But alas I don't think, beyond giving someone a rudimentary idea of what a symbol is, taking apart a text critically and thoughtfully is the way to knowledge. I'm trying to talk to a friend so if I lost you sorry! Uh forgive me if I'm misreading "thinking" as in treating a text like a text and not a dream you can enter when you read it.

[Murk2.0]

No. Oh my god, no. Pascal had it right: "Quand on lit trop vite ou trop doucement on n'entend rien."

[elpollodiablo]

I agree with the "No" part, but maybe not so emphatically. Either way, would you mind giving those of us who don't speak French/have any particular interest in Pascal a translation there, two-oh?

I wish I had time to write an involved response right now millster but these GODDAMN ASSHOLES WILL NOT STOP CALLING THE HOTEL.

[milly balgeary]

No. Oh my god, no. Pascal had it right: "Quand on lit trop vite ou trop doucement on n'entend rien."

I don't know what that means. But if you agree with me you're right. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong. And if you're trying to make a snooty, sarcastic comment, then I don't get it and I don't care because I don't much care about that stuff, because I don't have as much time as I used to have - so you're wasting a good one on me. Keep all this in mind.

[Murk2.0]

OK, sorry, everyone speaks German around here, so I just thought...

It means "When one reads too quickly or too slowly, one understands nothing." But "doucement" can also mean "gently."

[Murk2.0]

Actually, I don't know if it can mean "gently" in this context. I can only read French - am not up on conventions of speech.

[elpollodiablo]

But if you agree with me you're right. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong.

This is pretty much why I don't want to have this argument any more. I fool myself every time into thinking that if I'm conciliatory in showing you that I understand what you're saying and think there's some validity to it, maybe you'll try to open your mind up to my way of thinking a little bit. I'm sure this will be met either with a dense block of whimsical metaphor or a terse rebuttal, but, whatevs. DOGG.

[milly balgeary]

I have a few German words but not enough to work with that quote. Remember though, this is coming from a guy who reads for Voice. I need a strong voice which is probably why I don't read as much fiction lately cause except for the classics I'm plumb out. I've never been much attuned to word smith writers. I like the idea of Joyce much less like reading him. Know what I mean?

[elpollodiablo]

I'm pretty sure no amount of German is gonna help you with that quote, Jon.

[Murk2.0]

The Pascal is French, but I was thinking that since so many people speak German, maybe they understand some French too.

& no Mills, I disagree wholly & entirely w/ you & think possibly you cld be a little more open to the idea of critical & creative reading. Forget Voice &c. & not thinking. That's the dictatorship of the Word, man. Get some pliers.

[milly balgeary]

But if you agree with me you're right. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong.

This is pretty much why I don't want to have this argument any more. I fool myself every time into thinking that if I'm conciliatory in showing you that I understand what you're saying and think there's some validity to it, maybe you'll try to open your mind up to my way of thinking a little bit. I'm sure this will be met either with a dense block of whimsical metaphor or a terse rebuttal, but, whatevs. DOGG.

You're off in the wrong post. I was writing to Murk. I do understand your thinking and it's just as valid as my way of thinking. I accept that.

[elpollodiablo]

The Pascal is French, but I was thinking that since so many people speak German, maybe they understand some French too.

I dunno about everyone else, but I'm learning German so I never have to learn French.

Do you understand?


If so, meet me at the docks at midnight.

[elpollodiablo]

But if you agree with me you're right. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong.

This is pretty much why I don't want to have this argument any more. I fool myself every time into thinking that if I'm conciliatory in showing you that I understand what you're saying and think there's some validity to it, maybe you'll try to open your mind up to my way of thinking a little bit. I'm sure this will be met either with a dense block of whimsical metaphor or a terse rebuttal, but, whatevs. DOGG.

You're off in the wrong post. I was writing to Murk. I do understand your thinking and it's just as valid as my way of thinking. I accept that.

Naw, man, I knew you were talking to Murk. That's just a pretty succinct summation of the kind of vibe I get from you, sometimes.

[Murk2.0]

I understand.

But I am never, never meeting you anywhere at midnight, much less near open water.

[elpollodiablo]

Noon at the petting zoo?

[milly balgeary]

The Pascal is French, but I was thinking that since so many people speak German, maybe they understand some French too.

& no Mills, I disagree wholly & entirely w/ you & think possibly you cld be a little more open to the idea of critical & creative reading. Forget Voice &c. & not thinking. That's the dictatorship of the Word, man. Get some pliers.

Well, if I set out to read a book, I'm going to try to read what that person intended me to read at least the first time through. That's just common courtesy in my opinion. If I want to find out how this or that was done then I'll look more closely at it to try to dissect the part I'm interested in. That's about it.