|
Antwan3K posted:More difficult to keep reading because of extremely repetitive violence. It will become clear quite quickly when you start reading the part ('The Part about the Crimes'). Really? I had no idea the book went in that direction!
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Fellwenner posted:So you're reading background material by/about Gaddis, anything else you'd recommend? I've got to read Frolic and Agape first, but Hints and Guesses looks interesting. Steven Moore has edited a volume of his letters, which is good but also exactly the sort of thing Gaddis raged against. There are even a few letters where he bitches about Moore's "high-minded brutality of good intentions." The website is pretty good too, with a fair amount of supplementary articles though it loses interest after JR a bit. Mostly I have access to a university's library, so there are a lot of good articles which I'm not sure how practical it is it get otherwise. There's an issue of the Review of Contemporary Fiction dedicated to Gaddis, which has an interview and a lot of essays, especially a particularly good one one JR called The Paper Empire and Empirical Fictions of William Gaddis by Joel Dana Black. e: and Joseph Tabbi has a book of Gaddis' "Occasional Writings" which is a mixed bag. There's some stuff there that's as good as anything else, like JR Up to Date, where the young tyke has grown up and gone to Washington, a review of Butler's Erewhon, and In the Zone (I think) a fragment of autobiography. There's also a few things which are him at his worst. An entire university course compressed into 20 pages where he can only drop a name before moving on to another reference, and a short essay on the subject of mother's which somehow manages to move into talking about his bad reviews. Mr. Squishy fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? That's a joke, son.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Fly McCool posted:I don't mean to be naive, but surely this is parody? In what sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Is Robert Coover worth my time? I picked up Origin of the Brunists and Pricksongs and Decadents for cheap at a used bookstore and both seem to have intriguing plots but every review I've read of it makes it sound like boring DeLillo-y stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Reading Frolic of His Own and Oscar's play is just a trial for me. I'm sure there are allusions and junk that I need to pay attention to, but it's boring and I kind of just want to get to more judgments, because the lawyer/legalese stuff is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Frolic really is a hodge podge, I'm sure it wont surprise you to learn that the play is incorporated extracts of an actual play that he kicked around since before JR was finished. I don't think there's anything particularly vital in it if you plan to skim read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
I read it while watching football and such which I don't normally do, and Oscar mentioned coming up on Act 3, so hopefully it's over soon. It was just a jarring experience going from the brilliance of the statue opinion to blargh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
It's necessary to the book, and you need to have it there exactly for it to be legally deconstructed later on, but it's not that great. Gaddis was just too drat thrifty to throw anything out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Names of aurthors that a fun to say out loud: gaddis, delillo
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Is it a reoccurring theme to blur the line between science fiction and real life in postmodern literature? Or is it because postmodernism often shows the pushing of human mental capacity to the point of genius and/or insanity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Want a very simple and sound definition of postmodernism? It's all about reflexivity and self-awareness. Postmodernism is basically writing about writing. Everything "meta" or metalinguistic belongs here. The writer being a character is basically a signature trope, but the point is: worlds within worlds. Escher drawing of one hand drawing the other is postmodern. In general: the frame. The frame of a painting, the frame of a book, being the book itself. In general all these, in classic stories, are invisible. But in postmodernism they are subject. What's outside the picture is what the picture is about. The frame itself. So again: reflexivity and infinite loops. Myse en abyme. That's all you need to understand. Everything more commonly recognized as postmodern is a subset of the core I've pointed out. For example "questionable narrators" are part of this because a narrator is himself a framing device of a story. Being the focus the frame itself, so the narrator, you go and "question" it as an actual character. Same for "fragmentation" and "paradox". They are devices. They are meta-structure, so metalinguistic. Reflexivity about language. And all of this comes out merely because the original framing device, and reflexivity, is the brain. AKA consciousness. Postmodernism is about the unreliable narrator that is consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Stravinsky posted:Names of aurthors that a fun to say out loud: gaddis, delillo THomas Ruggles Pynchon
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Most names are fun to say if you have enough gusto in life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:Is Robert Coover worth my time? his baseball book is great
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Is it a reoccurring theme to blur the line between science fiction and real life in postmodern literature? That is an interesting question.. a couple years ago I read Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem which I would say is somewhat postmodern and also is really not a "scifi" book in any sense, but scifi elements sort of creep into the book as it goes along. But only in a way that is still somewhat plausible in early 21st century NYC and also in a way that causes us to ask if it even matters. Unfortunately it's not a very good book though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:It's necessary to the book, and you need to have it there exactly for it to be legally deconstructed later on, but it's not that great. Gaddis was just too drat thrifty to throw anything out. I finished Frolic a bit ago. Ended really strong. I still think the play, necessary as it is, is the weak point of the book. Perfectly captured life and fantastic judgments otherwise. Really pissed me off that we never got the final decision on the sculpture fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
The first chapter of Mason & Dixon is really good I'll keep everyone updated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Chapter two is pretty short and isn't as good as chapter one, but it did a good job of introducing Mason and Dixon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Note how Mason & Dixon begins: the snowballs have flown their arcs. If you're familiar with Gravity's Rainbow, you'll realize that right away Pynchon is saying "this book will be fun and light."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
After rewatching the Kubrick version of Lolita I've been desperate to read my copy again but am unable to due to lending it to a friend, so instead I'm thinking about finally getting round to Pale Fire. I doubt I'll have much time to read it with university (I really should be reading other things right now but meeeeh) but I'm looking forward to it! Also, what do you all think about The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy? Read it last year and I loved it. Her prose is incredible and I loved how it played around with time and structure. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for similar books?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I finished Gravity's Rainbow last week and meant to post a retrospective, but the forums crash threw me off. I am glad to read this. I'm about 100 pages into my most recent attempt on this book--I tried it before when I was probably far too young and cocky. So far it is mostly making sense--as long as I don't try to understand every damned thing being said. Instead, I'm reading each section as a movie scene being crafted by Pynchon in my head and it is working really well for me so far. I'm actually engaged with it for the first time
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
I'm reading Bleeding Edge and while I can't say that I'm not enjoying it, it's not grabbing me the way Gravity's Rainbow and V. did. I think it's mostly the theme and time period the book's placed in, even though it makes some pop culture references that I would never, ever have expected out of a man 3 times my age. It's not strictly PoMo literature, but did anybody else read it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I am glad to read this. I'm about 100 pages into my most recent attempt on this book--I tried it before when I was probably far too young and cocky. So far it is mostly making sense--as long as I don't try to understand every damned thing being said. Instead, I'm reading each section as a movie scene being crafted by Pynchon in my head and it is working really well for me so far. I'm actually engaged with it for the first time I'm glad I could help. It's a really rewarding book, ESPECIALLY when you get to section two. Section two is a little more straight-forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I'm glad I could help. It's a really rewarding book, ESPECIALLY when you get to section two. Section two is a little more straight-forward. Cool. That said I have read few book scenes quite as funny as the attempt to capture that dog right at the beginning
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Yo, can we call House of Leaves postmodern? I know it's kind of like "babby's first metatextualism," but gimmicky as it is it's a hell of a ride and it was an awesome stepping stone for me into Pynchon/DFW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Pynchon discussing goon culture in Bleeding Edge is an absolute delight. Pynchon is awesome and one of my favorite authors even though I outright hated about 40% of V, Vineland is pretty bad, and Against the Day is a bit of a slog while simultaneously containing some of the best passages of his career. But Gravity's Rainbow, Crying of Lot 49, Inherent Vice, Mason & Dixon, Bleeding Edge...loved them all. Everyone should read DeLillo - Underworld (especially that breathtaking opening baseball chapter) is great and Libra is even better. Ratner's Star should definitely get brought up in this discussion as well. The Names, Running Dog, Great Jones Street...DeLillo writes very smart, challenging books. I personally think that White Noise isn't a great representation of what he's all about. As far as DFW goes, Infinite Jest is worth the trip. But Pale King, while unfinished, is actually the more interesting book from a discussion standpoint. Not saying it's "better," just that I enjoyed tackling it and talking about it afterwards more. A Frolic of His Own is so much fun. Left me wanting to read more Gaddis. Vonnegut rocks. Nabokov's Pale Fire is astounding too. If you're in a Book Club with smart, interesting people and you want to have a heated discussion - pick this book. Not sure if it counts since it's a little before the time period but I recently read Flann O'Brien's At Swim-Two-Birds and it's a confusing, hilarious, mind-bending ride through multiple levels of narrative. It's actually fairly similar structurally to House of Leaves, now that I think about it. Martin Amis is worth checking out too. Money, London Fields, and the shocking-if-you-don't-know-anything-about-it-don't-even-read-the-blurb-on-the-back-of-the-book Time's Arrow. A little more straightforward than much of this crop. Anyway, reading rules. Glad I found this thread. Back to lurking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Yo, can we call House of Leaves postmodern? I know it's kind of like "babby's first metatextualism," but gimmicky as it is it's a hell of a ride and it was an awesome stepping stone for me into Pynchon/DFW. It's a piece of poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Yo, can we call House of Leaves postmodern? I know it's kind of like "babby's first metatextualism," but gimmicky as it is it's a hell of a ride and it was an awesome stepping stone for me into Pynchon/DFW. It's a postmodern novel that got popular so goons hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:It's a postmodern novel that got popular so goons hate it. There are way more goons who love that book than who hate it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
People hate it because it's a piece of poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:It's a postmodern novel that got popular so goons hate it. I enjoyed the Navidson Record sections but I still gave up about halfway through the book because I disliked the Jonny Truant sections so much (it felt like it was trying too hard to be "edgy" in a Chuck Palahniuk kind of way and I don't like his style either).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:It's a postmodern novel that got popular so goons hate it. Actually its just terrible and I am mad that I was tricked into reading it. Goons are the number one champions of it though so I do not know where you getting that from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Nothing sways my opinion on a book more than insightful commentary like "it's a piece of poo" and "it's just bad". House of Leaves was on my reading list but I won't bother with it now, thanks goons!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
your welcome
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Tim Burns Effect posted:I enjoyed the Navidson Record sections but I still gave up about halfway through the book because I disliked the Jonny Truant sections so much (it felt like it was trying too hard to be "edgy" in a Chuck Palahniuk kind of way and I don't like his style either). Yeah, a lot of the Johnny Truant stuff is a bit much with the whole "I'm a street walkin' cheeta with a heart full of napalm straight outta Bukowski!" vibe, but the Navidson parts were incredibly absorbing. There were passages there that were more viscerally disturbing than nearly anything I've ever read, with the possible exception of Blood Meridian and J.G. Ballard's Crash. Anyhow, I know a ton of people hate on HoL, and that's their prerogative of course, but I can't help feeling that there's just a bit of genre snobbery underlying the backlash. Then again I was a freshman in college last time I read it, so maybe if I did a reread I'd be rolling my eyes the whole time, dunno. Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Price Check posted:
Also, yeah, that Baseball chapter is one of the best things I've ever read. Like, holy poo poo-- "He speaks in your voice, American, and there's a shine in his eye that's halfway hopeful." If you don't have time for a "big read" like Underworld, you should still just read the first 50 or so pages. They hold up perfectly well on their own as a sort of dream-like, historically portentous short story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
One of the things I like about Underworld's opening is how he locates all of the film-stars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Nothing sways my opinion on a book more than insightful commentary like "it's a piece of poo" and "it's just bad". House of Leaves was on my reading list but I won't bother with it now, thanks goons! Sorry, it's a piece of poo, on account of the bad writing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
There are a lot of much worse books out there than House of Leaves and parts of it are decently entertaining, but the writing is indeed bad and really the whole thing is just Borges fanfiction. Which I guess is somewhat unique.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 17:38
|
|