Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
Are you saying you
didn't? Stick in the mud.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off.
That's one of my favorite aspects of his work. In
Mason & Dixon, he convincingly writes in an 18th century style for the majority of the book, but still manages to make it interesting and readable. I'm currently reading
Against the Day, and the first 30 pages or so is written in a 19th Century Young Adult Novel style (complete with overwritten passages and a sort of joyfyul bonhomie), which matches the innocence of the characters portrayed, before following another character to a much more wordly place, where the style makes a seamless switch to a darker, Realistic tone. The switch is suprisingly smooth - I was reading about the next character for almost four pages before it occured to me that the book was no longer oddly overwritten and precious.
I really enjoyed watching Slothrop disintegrate into like 5 different characters towards the end of the book, though it's been a while since I read it. Trying to decide just how much of the events in the book were "real" and how much were just his imagination was also pretty cool.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:02:33 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off.
That's one of my favorite aspects of his work. In Mason & Dixon, he convincingly writes in an 18th century style for the majority of the book, but still manages to make it interesting and readable. I'm currently reading Against the Day, and the first 30 pages or so is written in a 19th Century Young Adult Novel style (complete with overwritten passages and a sort of joyfyul bonhomie), which matches the innocence of the characters portrayed, before following another character to a much more wordly place, where the style makes a seamless switch to a darker, Realistic tone. The switch is suprisingly smooth - I was reading about the next character for almost four pages before it occured to me that the book was no longer oddly overwritten and precious.
I really enjoyed watching Slothrop disintegrate into like 5 different characters towards the end of the book, though it's been a while since I read it. Trying to decide just how much of the events in the book were "real" and how much were just his imagination was also pretty cool.
Go read "The Guns of August" you homos.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:29:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
Are you saying you didn't? Stick in the mud.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
I liked the poop sex.
Pedo poop sex?
Did Pynchon write this thing on an NEA grant?
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
I don't think you're wrong at all. This book was the most challenging I've read and way more of a challenge than IJ. I hope you don't write off Tom though - have you read any of his other stuff?
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:24:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
I don't think you're wrong at all. This book was the most challenging I've read and way more of a challenge than IJ. I hope you don't write off Tom though - have you read any of his other stuff?
I've read the first 15 pages of this book probably 5 times.
I think page 40 is my record.
Nothing written here so far is really making me regret this.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:24:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
I don't think you're wrong at all. This book was the most challenging I've read and way more of a challenge than IJ. I hope you don't write off Tom though - have you read any of his other stuff?
I have to admit, GR was the first Pynchon I ever read. It makes everything else he's written a lot easier to digest. And I'm pretty sure it also made it easier to finish
Ulysses as well.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2010, 10:26:21 AM
I've read the first 15 pages of this book probably 5 times.
I think page 40 is my record.
Nothing written here so far is really making me regret this.
As always, RV: listen to Pen. Then do the opposite.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2010, 10:26:21 AM
I've read the first 15 pages of this book probably 5 times.
I think page 40 is my record.
Nothing written here so far is really making me regret this.
As always, RV: listen to Pen. Then do the opposite.
Profit?
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:24:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
I don't think you're wrong at all. This book was the most challenging I've read and way more of a challenge than IJ. I hope you don't write off Tom though - have you read any of his other stuff?
I have to admit, GR was the first Pynchon I ever read. It makes everything else he's written a lot easier to digest. And I'm pretty sure it also made it easier to finish Ulysses as well.
This was my first Pynchoning. Are his other books less confounding?
As frustrating as it was, this book was worth reading solely for the fact that it introduced me to the term coprophagia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_episodes_in_Gravity%27s_Rainbow#Episode_4_2). General Pudding really knew how to party!
Other books of his I've read CAN be confounding at times, but not nearly as confounding as Gravity's Rainbow.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:24:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
Quote from: Jon on September 18, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: 5laky on September 18, 2008, 05:03:44 PM
The constant theme of all his books seems to be paranoia and not only are his characters paranoid, you get paranoid because you're not sure what reality or alternate reality the narrative is taking place. For example: talking light bulbs.
This.
And the transition from rational narrative to "what the hell is going on" is seamless in a lot of passages. Gravity's Rainbow is secretly about 500 pages longer than it looks because you end up going back and rereading the last page or so to figure out what you must have missed.
The best part is that the paranoia he instills in the reader is completely intentional. I remember reading the first 20 or 30 pages and thinking, "OK, so far I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here." And that went straight to hell immediately after the mention of Slothrop's memories circa 1944 and Blicero's disgusting exploits.
And that's where it gets fun.
Figured this deserved its own topic. Infinite Jest may be my favorite book, and everything I've read compares DFW's style to Pynchon, so I figured what the hell.
What a slog it was getting through this book. Whereas Infinite Jest was 20% maddening and 80% high entertainment, this was the opposite. I understand that the whole idea of the book is confusion and paranoia (along with boners and sexual depravity) and it's supposed to be a challenging read, but I just didn't care enough about the characters (as I did with IJ) to flip back through the book to figure out which of the 8,000 characters or narrative threads the current chapter was about.
Hooplehead.
So what you're saying is that you enjoyed the pedophilia aspects of the book? You sick bastard.
I liked the poop sex.
Which character did you feel the least apathy toward? I was a big fan of Roger Mexico.
I really enjoyed the Mexico-Pointsman stuff. Pirate was another guy I would've liked to have seen more. When the book starts with Pirate I figured it'd be about him and his strange ability, which would've been cool. But you don't see him again for 500 pages.
The interesting thing for me was all the styles of writing Pynchon can pull off. I just wish he would've written more in the styles that I enjoyed.
I don't think you're wrong at all. This book was the most challenging I've read and way more of a challenge than IJ. I hope you don't write off Tom though - have you read any of his other stuff?
I have to admit, GR was the first Pynchon I ever read. It makes everything else he's written a lot easier to digest. And I'm pretty sure it also made it easier to finish Ulysses as well.
This was my first Pynchoning. Are his other books less confounding?
As frustrating as it was, this book was worth reading solely for the fact that it introduced me to the term coprophagia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_episodes_in_Gravity%27s_Rainbow#Episode_4_2). General Pudding really knew how to party!
Are they less confounding? To a certain degree, yes. I think V is pretty royally fucked up as well but I enjoyed it more than GR. I really enjoyed it actually - would say it's my favorite of his. All I have left to read of his is the rest of Mason & Dixon and Against the Day.
Crying of Lot 49 is his shortest book but it's probably the most paranoid, if that means anything. Maybe pick that one up next and see if you enjoy it - it won't take you too long to get through and it's nowhere near as arduous.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
I have to admit, GR was the first Pynchon I ever read. It makes everything else he's written a lot easier to digest. And I'm pretty sure it also made it easier to finish Ulysses as well.
We get it. You're gay for avant-garde, poop-loving novelists of pale, British Isles extraction. We're all very impressed.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 09, 2010, 10:42:12 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
I have to admit, GR was the first Pynchon I ever read. It makes everything else he's written a lot easier to digest. And I'm pretty sure it also made it easier to finish Ulysses as well.
We get it. You're gay for avant-garde, poop-loving novelists of pale, British Isles extraction. We're all very impressed.
Well, Master of All the Internet Surveys was taken, so I needed
something else to do with my life.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:40:20 AM
Crying of Lot 49 is his shortest book but it's probably the most paranoid, if that means anything. Maybe pick that one up next and see if you enjoy it - it won't take you too long to get through and it's nowhere near as arduous.
You gave this advice on the IJ thread, and I think it's solid. Crying of Lot 49 is a good introduction.
I hate to go with basic comparisons with such singular talents as Pynchon or DFW (but I lack their
ability to not, so here we are), but Crying has a rough flow of Candide as far as absurdest plot. I
mean, it's in so many ways different and better, but that might prepare you a bit.
Gravity's Rainbow was hard to get through because there were so many parts where I just couldn't
wrap my head around if it was a dream or a delusion or the author writing drugged crazy or whatever.
When one of the couple actual "real" (I could ascribe something like thought and motive to them)
characters was involved (Mexico/Pointman/Pirate/Katje at times/Tchitcherine/Geli) I was able to follow
along better. Once I pretty much gave up trying to tie anything together not involving those characters
and just read each section as a self contained vignette and it was a hell of a lot more fun. I also read it
over a lot of train rides which surely increased my sense of how disjointed things were.
I agree that Infinite Jest had far more signal to noise for me. I enjoyed that book vastly more than GR.
I suggest IJ to anyone I think could handle it, but I wouldn't recommend GR to many people.
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 10:40:20 AM
Crying of Lot 49 is his shortest book but it's probably the most paranoid, if that means anything. Maybe pick that one up next and see if you enjoy it - it won't take you too long to get through and it's nowhere near as arduous.
You gave this advice on the IJ thread, and I think it's solid. Crying of Lot 49 is a good introduction.
I hate to go with basic comparisons with such singular talents as Pynchon or DFW (but I lack their
ability to not, so here we are), but Crying has a rough flow of Candide as far as absurdest plot. I
mean, it's in so many ways different and better, but that might prepare you a bit.
Gravity's Rainbow was hard to get through because there were so many parts where I just couldn't
wrap my head around if it was a dream or a delusion or the author writing drugged crazy or whatever.
When one of the couple actual "real" (I could ascribe something like thought and motive to them)
characters was involved (Mexico/Pointman/Pirate/Katje at times/Tchitcherine/Geli) I was able to follow
along better. Once I pretty much gave up trying to tie anything together not involving those characters
and just read each section as a self contained vignette and it was a hell of a lot more fun. I also read it
over a lot of train rides which surely increased my sense of how disjointed things were.
I agree that Infinite Jest had far more signal to noise for me. I enjoyed that book vastly more than GR.
I suggest IJ to anyone I think could handle it, but I wouldn't recommend GR to many people.
I've really never been able to figure out how to not sound like an insufferable douche when it comes to recommending or not recommending these books to people. I have one friend that I told about IJ and he read it and was extremely glad to have put in the effort. I don't know anyone else that would be willing to do it over 1100 pages, 300 of which are tiny footnotes. Even still, I'd recommend IJ over GR every single time. It almost makes IJ seem like a linear novel comparison when it's nowhere near.
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
Maybe not.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
A thousand times
THIAnd a million times
THI
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PMSo the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
Maybe not.
Who's to say this place exists? Maybe we're all just Pirate Prentice's interpretations of BC's fantasies.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2010, 02:12:21 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PMSo the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
Maybe not.
Who's to say this place exists? Maybe we're all just Pirate Prentice's interpretations of BC's fantasies.
Are you saying we should start keeping sex slaves just in case? Because I am willing to do this.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
A thousand times THI
And a million times THI
Fuck the vapid popcorn novel that was The Great Gatsby, too.
Quote from: Kermit IV on March 09, 2010, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
A thousand times THI
And a million times THI
Fuck the vapid popcorn novel that was The Great Gatsby, too.
Is it too soon for me to say "
Overrated: Catcher in the Rye?"
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:29:28 PM
Is it too soon for me to say "Overrated: Catcher in the Rye?"
Catcher in the Rye is overrated. Just like Walter Payton was.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:29:28 PM
Is it too soon for me to say "Overrated: Catcher in the Rye?"
Catcher in the Rye is overrated. Just like Walter Payton was.
Get back to the M*A*S*H thread.
Quote from: Kermit IV on March 09, 2010, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
A thousand times THI
And a million times THI
Fuck the vapid popcorn novel that was The Great Gatsby, too.
But the green light meant envy!
Thanks for summing that up, Pre. It's true - kids are basically taught to hate literature. It's so very sad.
Jane Eyre anyone? Fuck that book.
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
I never read The Scarlet Letter
Doesn't hockeynight have forums that you can "contribute" to?
Quote from: Pre on March 11, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
I never read The Scarlet Letter
Doesn't hockeynight have forums that you can "contribute" to?
Nathaniel Hawthorne sucks.
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 03:02:24 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on March 09, 2010, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 09, 2010, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 09, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The tangent I'm going off on here is this: how do you recommend something to someone without using the phrase "I'm not sure if this book is for you" which implies that you're somehow smarter/better than that person? It's a real problem and this problem, in and of itself, adds to the insufferable douche factor of the whole recommendation conundrum.
So the issue with these authors and their books is that you almost have to bump into someone that happens to have already read these books as recommendation is all but out of the question. Which is another reason why I'm glad this place exists so I can talk about these pointless things with people who know what I'm getting at. Maybe.
It's weird, because movies aren't at all like that. People never take offense to being told that they
wouldn't enjoy a movie. I think a lot of it is that few people are actually interested in reading
literature over escapist candy novels but are also self conscious about admitting it to others or
sometimes even themselves. I don't get it. I like escapist books just like I love escapist movies. I
also have no interest in the world in trying to finish War and Peace again (made it 100 pages maybe)
or anything like it and I'm not ashamed of that.
I think a lot of things are just so different that the only way someone is going to know if they like it is
by trying and that applies to everything from sky diving to 1100 page novels revolving around a tennis
academy. There's similar things that you can use to estimate if you'll like it, but if you're unfamiliar with
the general concept then you just have to try it.
If you like to sky dive then you'll probably like to bungi jump. Liking the Da Vinci Code isn't going to mean
you'll like Focult's Pendulum, but liking House of Leaves probably means you'll like Infinite Jest.
Maybe one of the problems is school. I know some high school teachers act like if you don't love whatever
classic novels they chose to teach then the problem is that you're failing to get it versus maybe it just sucks.
So a bunch of people probably grow up thinking that they're not smart enough to appreciate good novels
instead of the fact that The Scarlet Letter sucks balls and they should feel good about hating it. And they
get such a stale view into the world of literature that they think those of us that enjoy it are reading a
bunch of classic/modern day Hawthorne style tripe.
A thousand times THI
And a million times THI
Fuck the vapid popcorn novel that was The Great Gatsby, too.
But the green light meant envy!
Thanks for summing that up, Pre. It's true - kids are basically taught to hate literature. It's so very sad.
Jane Eyre anyone? Fuck that book.
An overanalyzing high school teacher ruined
"The Good Grocer" "The Assistant" for me.
For fucks sake not every written word has to be looked at as a metaphor.
Edit - Because I'm an idiot and high school was so long ago that I couldn't remember the correct title.
Quote from: flannj on March 11, 2010, 12:00:05 PM
An overanalyzing high school teacher ruined "The Good Grocer" for me.
Not every written word has to be looked at as a metaphor for fucks sake.
For me, it was a lit class in college called "Twentieth Century Novelists". I signed up, expecting Vonnegut, Hemingway, or something else cool and interesting.
Instead I got a loser with an Oedipal complex giving me a semester of D.H. Lawrence.
Nothing can kill love of Literature like a Lit class.
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 11, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
I never read The Scarlet Letter
Doesn't hockeynight have forums that you can "contribute" to?
Nathaniel Hawthorne sucks.
I never had to read The Scarlet Letter, but do recall hating Hawthorne's short story "The Minister's Black Veil" in its place.
It was "Bartleby, the Scrivener" without all the action.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 11, 2010, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 11, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
I never read The Scarlet Letter
Doesn't hockeynight have forums that you can "contribute" to?
Nathaniel Hawthorne sucks.
I never had to read The Scarlet Letter, but do recall hating Hawthorne's short story "The Minister's Black Veil" in its place.
It was "Bartleby, the Scrivener" without all the action.
Wow. I managed to have to hate ALL THREE of those in 10th Grade.
I also hated
Catcher in the Rye on my own time that year.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2010, 02:29:28 PM
Is it too soon for me to say "Overrated: Catcher in the Rye?"
I don't have strong feelings either way on Catcher.
But "Nine Stories" is outstanding.
Quote from: Bort on March 11, 2010, 01:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 11, 2010, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 11, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
Books like The Scarlet Letter and Ethan Frome exist for horny schoolteachers to underline the fuck scenes.
I never read The Scarlet Letter
Doesn't hockeynight have forums that you can "contribute" to?
Nathaniel Hawthorne sucks.
I never had to read The Scarlet Letter, but do recall hating Hawthorne's short story "The Minister's Black Veil" in its place.
It was "Bartleby, the Scrivener" without all the action.
Wow. I managed to have to hate ALL THREE of those in 10th Grade.
I also hated Catcher in the Rye on my own time that year.
Crispin Glover and Joe Piscopo, together at last! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6AXySuIFUs)
Quote from: Fork on March 11, 2010, 12:03:21 PM
Nothing can kill love of Literature like a Lit class great aunt with an S.E. Hinton fixation.
Memories of a lousy summer'd.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
Catcher in the Rye is overrated. Just like Walter Payton was.
Gaddam, I fergot I hated you, too. Catcher in the Rye is indeed overrated, but Walter Payton was underrated. You have overrated your ability to make proper ratings.
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:49:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
Catcher in the Rye is overrated. Just like Walter Payton was.
Gaddam, I fergot I hated you, too. Catcher in the Rye is indeed overrated, but Walter Payton was underrated. You have overrated your ability to make proper ratings.
You may still hate me but clearly you didn't follow what I was going for.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2010, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:49:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
Catcher in the Rye is overrated. Just like Walter Payton was.
Gaddam, I fergot I hated you, too. Catcher in the Rye is indeed overrated, but Walter Payton was underrated. You have overrated your ability to make proper ratings.
You may still hate me but clearly you didn't follow what I was going for.
If you were saying that Catcher in the Rye was actually underrated, then you couldn't be wronger on the wrongin'-est day of your life with an electrified wrongin' machine.