From what I've read, I love him. The way he deals with paranoia in The Crying of Lot 49 totally blew my mind, and Gravity's Rainbow is, without a doubt, one of the best novels of the century. He really opened up my mind for what contemporary fiction is: moreso than narrative, fiction's role is to create a world of information. Whether that information is true is not as important as whether or not it is coherent. Whereas modernism loved fragmentation, postmodernism LOVES coherence -- it just doesn't have to correspond with reality.
i tried reading 49 and I couldn't do it. i found every scene painful. his bizarre ideas and characters were pleasant but the i found the prose itself just really jarring and unreadable. i physically do not want to read the book, and i feel bad about it.
Any specific examples?
Also, reading IJ on a kindle seems downright wrong.
I can't give you any passages, because the book is in the bedroom and to wake my girlfriend would result in death.
however, I put the book down after the scene where Metzger and Oedipa sleep together. i can't tell you what it was, but i was physically repulsed by the writing. it wasn't actually so much the prose as the narrative sequence of events, which was so powerfully...arbitrary?
it irritated me in the same way that someone saying "hey i had this dream, here's what happened" irritates me. nobody cares about your dreams.
Poetry is one of the few things I ever enjoyed writing when I was younger. People said it was good but hell if I will share it with anyone now. Of course I haven't written any in years.
Oh man there's no way I'm taking a creative writing class this semester I'm probably already going to end up writing over a hundred pages of essays this semester.
Inquisitor on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Oh man there's no way I'm taking a creative writing class this semester I'm probably already going to end up writing over a hundred pages of essays this semester.
oh yeah? well I dropped out of college, quisy, how about that?
Oh man there's no way I'm taking a creative writing class this semester I'm probably already going to end up writing over a hundred pages of essays this semester.
oh yeah? well I dropped out of college, quisy, how about that?
From what I've read, I love him. The way he deals with paranoia in The Crying of Lot 49 totally blew my mind, and Gravity's Rainbow is, without a doubt, one of the best novels of the century. He really opened up my mind for what contemporary fiction is: moreso than narrative, fiction's role is to create a world of information. Whether that information is true is not as important as whether or not it is coherent. Whereas modernism loved fragmentation, postmodernism LOVES coherence -- it just doesn't have to correspond with reality.
I don't think I would call Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon even vaguely coherent.
Whatever it is that postmodernism adores, it ain't coherence. It's probably, like, rejection of objective reality or something.
From what I've read, I love him. The way he deals with paranoia in The Crying of Lot 49 totally blew my mind, and Gravity's Rainbow is, without a doubt, one of the best novels of the century. He really opened up my mind for what contemporary fiction is: moreso than narrative, fiction's role is to create a world of information. Whether that information is true is not as important as whether or not it is coherent. Whereas modernism loved fragmentation, postmodernism LOVES coherence -- it just doesn't have to correspond with reality.
I don't think I would call Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon even vaguely coherent.
Whatever it is that postmodernism adores, it ain't coherence. It's probably, like, rejection of objective reality or something.
The character's ideologies in IJ are extremely coherent. That's why Pynchon loves paranoia -- because the characters often hold completely logical belief systems which are nevertheless bizarre and at odds with reality. Pynchon's narrative technique is to show this not by having a coherent or incoherent narrative, but merely to present information.
Kafka is one of the greatest authors in human history
Yes.
The Trial is the only book I've read where as soon as I finished it, I started reading it again without another book in between.
I enjoyed reading it but quit halfway through. I guess I saw that it was pretty much treading the same spiral and didn't really see the point in continuing.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
From what I've read, I love him. The way he deals with paranoia in The Crying of Lot 49 totally blew my mind, and Gravity's Rainbow is, without a doubt, one of the best novels of the century. He really opened up my mind for what contemporary fiction is: moreso than narrative, fiction's role is to create a world of information. Whether that information is true is not as important as whether or not it is coherent. Whereas modernism loved fragmentation, postmodernism LOVES coherence -- it just doesn't have to correspond with reality.
I don't think I would call Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon even vaguely coherent.
Whatever it is that postmodernism adores, it ain't coherence. It's probably, like, rejection of objective reality or something.
The character's ideologies in IJ are extremely coherent. That's why Pynchon loves paranoia -- because the characters often hold completely logical belief systems which are nevertheless bizarre and at odds with reality. Pynchon's narrative technique is to show this not by having a coherent or incoherent narrative, but merely to present information.
so what is the broader implication of this for contemporary fiction, if the presentation of coherent systems of information is indeed the task of fiction? in your view? does it have to do with intersubjectivity? a critique of reason?
Evil Multifarious on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
From what I've read, I love him. The way he deals with paranoia in The Crying of Lot 49 totally blew my mind, and Gravity's Rainbow is, without a doubt, one of the best novels of the century. He really opened up my mind for what contemporary fiction is: moreso than narrative, fiction's role is to create a world of information. Whether that information is true is not as important as whether or not it is coherent. Whereas modernism loved fragmentation, postmodernism LOVES coherence -- it just doesn't have to correspond with reality.
I don't think I would call Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon even vaguely coherent.
Whatever it is that postmodernism adores, it ain't coherence. It's probably, like, rejection of objective reality or something.
The character's ideologies in IJ are extremely coherent. That's why Pynchon loves paranoia -- because the characters often hold completely logical belief systems which are nevertheless bizarre and at odds with reality. Pynchon's narrative technique is to show this not by having a coherent or incoherent narrative, but merely to present information.
Well, I have not read Crying, so I can't speak to it, but Gravity's Rainbow and Mason & Dixon both employed intentionally occlusive language and writing techniques. I know he wrote the fucker on quadrile paper, but it does not contain the lucidity and fact-presenting of an engineering report.
Irond Will on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
so what is the broader implication of this for contemporary fiction, if the presentation of coherent systems of information is indeed the task of fiction? in your view? does it have to do with intersubjectivity? a critique of reason?
For the last few months or so, I've been toying with writing a novel told via a wiki.
I think that is extremely informative of my views of contemporary fiction.
@will: usually, that is done because the information itself is hermeneutical and contextualized; i.e., the information is inseparable from its historical means of transmission.
Posts
Hide the Salami? :winky:
I'm only 1 minute in and I have to say thank you for giving me a new band to get into.
I can't give you any passages, because the book is in the bedroom and to wake my girlfriend would result in death.
however, I put the book down after the scene where Metzger and Oedipa sleep together. i can't tell you what it was, but i was physically repulsed by the writing. it wasn't actually so much the prose as the narrative sequence of events, which was so powerfully...arbitrary?
it irritated me in the same way that someone saying "hey i had this dream, here's what happened" irritates me. nobody cares about your dreams.
League of Legends!
I just cannot get into her music. >.<
I'm going to go see them live in March with the girl. Skippy and Passer are fans too.
Most PC games rape my computer.
how is Great Big Sea a "new band?" how has anyone not heard them? i am astonished.
this is pretty good, tarannon showed me some shit. we'll have to play soon.
*High five* I figured out she sounds like Groove Coverage without the chicks cool voice. But yeah, I can't get into her at all either.
oh yeah? well I dropped out of college, quisy, how about that?
?????????????
New they aren't, but I also don't recall them getting any air time in the states.
Damn, either they're not going to California this tour or I missed them.
And EM: Chances are if a band is popular from later than 1990, I don't know their stuff.
That's a lot of question marks!
But at least Groove Coverage tends to use good songs. The only version of Poker Face I can stand is Christopher Walken's.
Cinders, I approve of this course of action.
Nooooooo Heroes of Newerth!
The letters in white, right?
That way they'd be in #FFFFFF
I don't know if I should laugh or weep openly.
Booooooooooo
I don't think I would call Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon even vaguely coherent.
Whatever it is that postmodernism adores, it ain't coherence. It's probably, like, rejection of objective reality or something.
Yup, welcome to Neil Stephenson.
The character's ideologies in IJ are extremely coherent. That's why Pynchon loves paranoia -- because the characters often hold completely logical belief systems which are nevertheless bizarre and at odds with reality. Pynchon's narrative technique is to show this not by having a coherent or incoherent narrative, but merely to present information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXYxxHXAf_U&feature=PlayList&p=7E6383F2FE0F488B&index=16
I enjoyed reading it but quit halfway through. I guess I saw that it was pretty much treading the same spiral and didn't really see the point in continuing.
so what is the broader implication of this for contemporary fiction, if the presentation of coherent systems of information is indeed the task of fiction? in your view? does it have to do with intersubjectivity? a critique of reason?
Well, I have not read Crying, so I can't speak to it, but Gravity's Rainbow and Mason & Dixon both employed intentionally occlusive language and writing techniques. I know he wrote the fucker on quadrile paper, but it does not contain the lucidity and fact-presenting of an engineering report.
For the last few months or so, I've been toying with writing a novel told via a wiki.
I think that is extremely informative of my views of contemporary fiction.
@will: usually, that is done because the information itself is hermeneutical and contextualized; i.e., the information is inseparable from its historical means of transmission.