-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Thomas Pynchon
- Thread starter warm_enema
- Start date
That's good news Beer Good!
Peder
Well-Known Member
Morgolemthau,
Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.
But, rather than get further into more detailed discussion of style preferences and individual works, I think I'll leave it at that.
I'm trying to maintain a low profile here and think nothing will be served by repeatedly stating a negative reaction, here where so many favor him.
So when my needle swings to positive, then you'll hear the news. Until then. I'm out foraging for different reading.
Best wishes :flowers:
Peder
Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.
But, rather than get further into more detailed discussion of style preferences and individual works, I think I'll leave it at that.
I'm trying to maintain a low profile here and think nothing will be served by repeatedly stating a negative reaction, here where so many favor him.
So when my needle swings to positive, then you'll hear the news. Until then. I'm out foraging for different reading.
Best wishes :flowers:
Peder
August.
It's Ecto-1!
beer good
Well-Known Member
And the first advance reports of Inherent Vice start to trickle in:
And he namedrops Sandor Marai, too. Urge to read rising.
And he namedrops Sandor Marai, too. Urge to read rising.
saliotthomas
New Member
Were i a fish and you a fisherman BG i would be resting in the frying pan right now.
beer good
Well-Known Member
A couple of thoughts upon re-reading The Crying Of Lot 49.
Being by far the shortest and condensed of Pynchon's novels, it's both easier and harder to make sense of than his longer works. On the one hand, the plot - a woman is asked to be executor of her ex's estate, and in the process uncovers a conspiracy involving a shadow post office going back hundreds of years (or does she?) is much easier to follow than the vast, intermingling storylines of his other works. On the other hand, the world in Crying is just as mad and chaotically ordered as in any of his other books; but since we only see one person's view of it, we can't even trust that fully. Which of course is part of the point. It's not for nothing that he drops several references to Lolita; Oedipa Maas' story may be told in the third person, but her experiences are just as unreliably told as Humbert's. There are bunches of references to things being deliberately fake; the Hollywood world, American rock bands posing as Brits (this being 1963), newly made Nazi uniforms for sale to collectors...
All of Pynchon's novels play around with the idea of disestablishmentarianism, of underground (or overground, or inground, as in Against The Day) organisations refusing to follow the official line of how the world is. The world isn't simple, the ones in control are only in control of what we acknowledge them to be in control of. It's essentially a pre-Internet cyberthriller, all about the control (or lack thereof) of information. But if the ones in control are actually behind the anti-establishment - what then? Or what if all that gets sent through this alternative information system is meaningless "hi, hope you are well" messages - what's so subversive about that?
As conspiracy thrillers go, it's really more Foucault's Pendulum than The Da Vinci Code. Oedipa Maas is stuck in the midst of what might be a huge conspiracy, might be all in her head, or might actually even be exactly what it looks like: that we prefer the idea of there being a conspiracy to simply realising that we're being openly screwed.
Or not. The Crying Of Lot 49 came out in the early 60s, at the beginning of something of a paradigm shift; it's no less relevant in today's world. It doesn't offer any answers, Pynchon's novels never do, it just spins you around until you're not sure what side is up and if you're on either of them. It ridicules the ideas of conformity and efficiency - for instance, in the anecdote of the man who's replaced by a machine, eventually decides (after consulting the underground mail service) to commit suicide by self-immolation, and is surprised in the act by his wife and her lover, the very efficiency expert who had him replaced:
Being by far the shortest and condensed of Pynchon's novels, it's both easier and harder to make sense of than his longer works. On the one hand, the plot - a woman is asked to be executor of her ex's estate, and in the process uncovers a conspiracy involving a shadow post office going back hundreds of years (or does she?) is much easier to follow than the vast, intermingling storylines of his other works. On the other hand, the world in Crying is just as mad and chaotically ordered as in any of his other books; but since we only see one person's view of it, we can't even trust that fully. Which of course is part of the point. It's not for nothing that he drops several references to Lolita; Oedipa Maas' story may be told in the third person, but her experiences are just as unreliably told as Humbert's. There are bunches of references to things being deliberately fake; the Hollywood world, American rock bands posing as Brits (this being 1963), newly made Nazi uniforms for sale to collectors...
All of Pynchon's novels play around with the idea of disestablishmentarianism, of underground (or overground, or inground, as in Against The Day) organisations refusing to follow the official line of how the world is. The world isn't simple, the ones in control are only in control of what we acknowledge them to be in control of. It's essentially a pre-Internet cyberthriller, all about the control (or lack thereof) of information. But if the ones in control are actually behind the anti-establishment - what then? Or what if all that gets sent through this alternative information system is meaningless "hi, hope you are well" messages - what's so subversive about that?
As conspiracy thrillers go, it's really more Foucault's Pendulum than The Da Vinci Code. Oedipa Maas is stuck in the midst of what might be a huge conspiracy, might be all in her head, or might actually even be exactly what it looks like: that we prefer the idea of there being a conspiracy to simply realising that we're being openly screwed.
Or not. The Crying Of Lot 49 came out in the early 60s, at the beginning of something of a paradigm shift; it's no less relevant in today's world. It doesn't offer any answers, Pynchon's novels never do, it just spins you around until you're not sure what side is up and if you're on either of them. It ridicules the ideas of conformity and efficiency - for instance, in the anecdote of the man who's replaced by a machine, eventually decides (after consulting the underground mail service) to commit suicide by self-immolation, and is surprised in the act by his wife and her lover, the very efficiency expert who had him replaced:
And it stops right before the supposed revelation, leaves you hanging, wanting both more and less of this glorious, bewildering, hilarious madness.
beer good
Well-Known Member
And the reviews for Inherent Vice start dropping in.
the Literary Saloon at the complete review - 21 - 27 July 2009 Archive
Nope, still not any less excited about it.
the Literary Saloon at the complete review - 21 - 27 July 2009 Archive
Nope, still not any less excited about it.
beer good
Well-Known Member
Really? The harshest review - the only negative one of the ones listed - said that "Excess is the recurring failure here (...) too much druggy humour, too many nubile women throwing themselves at men, too many mentions of the cult-leader killer Charles Manson, and too many sentences ending in ellipses" but also acknowledged that it was "very funny (...) full of superb dialogue and lovely descriptive passages that show that, at 72, the outstanding gifts that led in the 1960s and 1970s to comparisons with Joyce and Melville have not deserted him." That's not exactly "dreadful" in my book. But I suppose we all read what we want to read. :flowers:
Peder
Well-Known Member
There were other comments I had in mind, but I'll forego detailing them here, not wanting to start a full-scale war with afficianodos. Suffice it to say that an uncomplimentary review by me of Lot 49 brought me the only poison-pen PM that I have ever received on any forum. And that is not my aim in life. So I'll read Inherent Vice with as open a mind as I can bring to it. And keep further negative comments, if any, to myself.
But I am looking forward to it,
Cheers
:flowers:
But I am looking forward to it,
Cheers
:flowers:
saliotthomas
New Member
I browsed this thread (interesting!) and find no traces of your review?
It was on another forum?
I've never had anyone send me a PM complaining (or applauding) about a review I wrote. Maybe it's because I have never reviewed any of the sacred cows (I did not like Madam Bovary and The Great Gatsby though).
Out of curiosity, where is this sitting on your TBR pile?
beer good
Well-Known Member
I certainly have no interest in a "war". I would hope most of us are mature enough to be able to at least correctly quote what others have said about a book. So if you have any dissenting reviews apart from the ones in my link, I'd love to read them. :flowers:
Right on top as soon as it comes out, which should be in just over a week or so.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Very sorry to send you on a wild goose chase, Thomas. The review was posted on my blog up above, here on Book and Reader, and I deleted it rather than attract further unfavorable mention. I'll PM it to you in case you are interested.
Peder
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean you specifically BG. I have found there are others who are passionate about Pynchon as well.
I'm not quite sure of the intent of the preamble to your request, regarding maturity and quoting. Perhaps I should have been excruciatingly clearer with my syntax in referring to the excerpts of reviews we both read.
The factual descriptions provided by some of the reviews, especially if they recalled similarities (to me) with Lot 49, rang up in my mind as "dreadful" -- even though I am sure that word was not used in any excerpt, and even though the review might have been mild or balanced.
I have always assumed the purpose of reviews was to enable the reader to make up their own mind about the desirability of reading the work in question, not necessarily being required to accept the view put forth by the reviewer. But that has got me in trouble before, where an occasional forum member who liked a work was put off by my decision against reading it, and criticized me for it. So I'm sorry for any unintended misrepresentation of any review.
Going back through and pointing out comments that would deter me from Inherent Vice seems like a not very good application of time at this point, although it could be done. If you are interested I'll send you a PM, to keep this difference of opinion more contained than it might otherwise be.
Regards
Charles
:flowers: