Just finished pic related, and it's great af. Anybody else enjoy it? Thoughts?

I loved the first 2/3. I thought the ending was a bit anti-climactic, but still overall a good read.

Get young, I already know most of the things about vampires from previous shows so the classic roots won't be interesting to me.

I'm reading it for class and I love it

>I already know most of the things about vampires
that's not what makes the book good, retard
I bet you read for the plot

>leave Veeky Forums and never return if you are reading for the plot

I really enjoyed it as well. For other classic vampire works, I found The Vampyre, while Carmilla was good fun.

superior

Same. I'm glad I read it; it was much better than I was expecting it to be.

Ending was very anticlimactic but the beginning is great.

The first quarter of the book is great. It slows waaaay the fuck down when he escapes Dracula's castle. 5/10.

I, did not.

jej

I understood this reference.

lel, pynch are you in here?

Indeed.

I still haven't finished it because of that goddamn middle section. Frankenstein and Dorian Gray were far superior gothic/horror novels.

MM here, i disliked Dracula intensely. don't know why everyone enjoys it so much. read it at an incredibly influential age, and still remember next to nothing about it. If I forget things, that's a strike against their efficacy as an author. Fuck Dracula.

> MM

Marylin Manson?

nope.

I'm not kidding, you guys. I'm Tom. Tom Pynchon.

but you're not bill murray. anyway, tom, when you gonna send your fishing line back to the past or into the future? you still have to do ancient history, i mean, yeah, the mason dixon line was fun and all, but what about the gordian knot? what of time's helix? what of the event horizon? your line series isn't complete!

I have to agree with the other user. Though the prose is quite beautiful, the story,origin, powers and weaknesses of Dracula were spoiled by TV and other forms of media; made almost boring to read about. The exact same thing happened when I read the strange case of Dr.Jekill and Mr.Hyde, I knew the whole plot thanks to the looney tunes. I was essentially reading for further details and nice writting.

I do think the other user should read Dracula either way, however.

this is so reddit

Why would you be surprised, nobody here has read anything.

i read it in children's prison at the tender age of fifteen, i read Poe in there as well. Poe was far better. I read Don Quixote as well. Lots of stuff. anyway, Dracula was fragmented, boring, and felt spiritless at the time, enough for me to ignore it in my adult age, knowing that there was nothing to learn from it other than how to despise another man's writing enough to shit on it as an adult in over a decade's time on the internet.

I'm between two. I've become interested in Borges again and, although my career as a literary critic never panned out nor did I ever write the definitive work on Argentine lit, as I told my sister I would, many years ago, I've been thinking about completing something I've been working on for quite some time. Something Borgesque. The other idea has to do with one of the little-known oddities of Scandinavian history.

Not sure.

what better line than a maze, i suppose. well, i'm sure they'll be interesting in any case. i watched some interview with Borges and buckeye jr. it wasn't all that great. hey, pynch, while you're here, if someone's name has jr. in it, and you want to end the sentence with their name, does that period serve both purposes? should one artificially extend the sentence to accomodate both? should one use two?

>what better line than a maze, i suppose.
You should read Borges to know a maze is unnecessary.

As for your grammar question, you don't NEED two. You can put two if you want. You can just use one. You can just write Junior, and not abbreviate it at all. You can write Junior the whole time. Doesn't matter. It's your work.

ah, you're not Pynchon then. i can't say i'm not disappointed. later, holmes.

MM

>ah, you're not Pynchon then. i can't say i'm not disappointed. later, holmes.
>MM
Well then, wise user. Tell us, what I would say if I were me. Which I'm not, of course.

you would know that the question was a clue to be evasive about and use it as a launchpad for a far more entertaining discussion. a man such as Pynchon would have thought immediately of Gaddis, and probably would have mentioned something to that effect.
you're just the "fagit" guy.

lol. Says the man who has completely missed any and all launchpads I've offered for a far more interesting discussion? But no, you're an user so wise that everyone, even the literary hero you come here every day and night and wait for, should come to you and engage in YOUR discussion based on whatever ridiculous desire or dream you've had in your head about how your "true" genius will be recognized and we'll exchange emails and become best of friends. Here, every night, waiting for it to happen. Every wish you have in your head for the night you encounter "HIM" on here.

lol. Better a witty fool than a foolish wit. Continue to wait forever for me, MM. You blew it.

>thinking MM wants to be buddy buddy and exchange emails with Pynchon
i'm challenging the bastard when i demand he write more of his line series. sure, i'll try different tactics, butter him up, but as a consumer, i want him to finish it.
He's a glorified GRRM.
besides, talking about borges and scandinavian history as a launchpad? speaking of loving every laugh.

It was ok. It's got some really good tension especially in the beginning, but you can just feel Stoker's paranoia about women oozing out of it and it kind of hijacks the rest of the themes.

Do you really not know how much I used to be into Borges? And you've never read my Feghoot about Scandinavian history? user, at least be literate if you're going to challenge Tom, when he comes here again, which, of course, I won't.

pfft, yeah okay.
you probably can't even do a cold fusion or split the atom.
i'm gonna go get drunk and work off this spider.

Quincy Morris's dialogue will always be hilarious

>i'm gonna go get drunk and work off this spider.
Of course you are. Here, bud, before you go. Just for you.

One of the little-known oddities of Scandinavian history is that the first Norwegian census was taken under the technical supervision of Ferdinand Feghoot in the year 1000. Ferdinand, having just obtained his Doctor of Demography degree at the well-known centre of learning in post-Nasserian Egypt, Farouk U., decided to try out a few of his theories on the mediaeval Norsemen; so with time machine and slide rule he journeyed back and talked the king of Norway into appointing an official census taker and asking his subjects embarrassing questions about outdoor toilets, and such. One day, during a routine scanning of the names collected up till then, Ferdinand came across the name of Lief Ericsson. Puzzled, he called in the chief census taker. "I suppose," said Feghoot, "You not only took down Lief Ericsson's name but those of his crew as well." The official admitted this was so. "Well, you fucking idiot," said Ferdinand, "Lief and his crew are out of the country, they sailed west to discover the new world. It isn't kosher to include them on your list, so delete all their names immediately." "All right," said the official. Next day Ferdinand encountered him outside the royal chambers, swinging from a chandelier and drooling out the side of his mouth. "Well," inquired Ferdinand Feghoot, "have you taken Lief off your census?"

hey that's pretty funny. thanks. i feel better after the alcohol. this spider bite sucks, man.
tell me about Pynchon's obsession with Borges, i guess.
what's the next step here? I'm no genius, and I know that, I also know it won't be realized, so I wasn't waiting for that either. I do wonder about his lines. what's the next line? how could he get rid of them?
whatcha mean that mazes are unnecessary? i was talking about lines still.

>hey that's pretty funny. thanks.
No problem, bud.

yeah i was scoping the phrase out, i forgot about the guy who posted the letters, i was in that thread, have em saved somewhere. i never even read the damn things. i guess that ought to be fun.

>i never even read the damn things.
You should have.
>"When I realize my true vocation as literary critic and write the definitive work on XX Argentine Lit, this I think will be my basic dichotomy (God how I used to love that word): the labyrinth and the plain. The work of a malevolent God and the work of man, both essentially the same, both designed to destroy or alienate the human spirit."

well, to be fair, i can't read as it is. i'm all constipated with worthless memories.
hell, i can't even bring myself to finish GR. I have some fun, then I put it down. I read about an inch a year now. I just want my amphetamines back, man.

Reginald Bretnor does sort of sound like a Pynchonian name, now that I look at it.

Everyone gets down on themselves. Even Tom. You'll be fine.

not without the amphetamines, and this spider bite is ironically fucking up my web. my sponge is all slopped out, doesn't come back to freshness after a squeeze. I feel like my mind is a prolapsed anus without ever having the decency to shit out anything to show for it, my man. I do think Tolstoy was a fuckass though. At least I'll be a better husband than him, even if i can't be even close to him as an author.

Tolstoy is just boring for most people. He should have been a historian. It would have been better for his religion, too.

I wish he had just written a diary. If he had just done the Turgenev thing, written a diary, maybe embellished, but kept some spirit up, something like Levin, sitting there with that slave's sop, the grass floating in the water, the only lucid moment, the only there could be, the marionette that Nabokov pined for (what a homosexual, i blame his uncle), so lifeless in the hands of any man, some phantom, such a slurry of his own vengeance against a slight that never happened, what a liar, a cheat, a jerk. a rapist. I wasn't bored, I just hated him.

Marylin Monroe obviously.

By the way, I wonder, if Pynchon was so obsessed with Argentinians, did he end up reading the book just recently translated, some two years ago? Not very popular, has something like a sun on its cover, supposed to be an incredible work, but haven't gotten to it yet.

>great af

It's really good and surprisingly comfy

no, just MM, some bullshit I came up with a couple weeks ago in a thread.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S9865528
this one, matter of fact. i'm the one who ate the sandwich.

My biggest hate or literary wish, for lack of a better word, is how decimated the Russians were after the Revolution. Tolstoy was one of the last, if not the last, major figure before it was taken over and destroyed. I mean, say what you want about the Russian bourgeoisie but they could fucking write.

oh yes. i have wasted many a dollar and time on soviet and post-soviet russian literature, and been disappoijted again and again. about the only guy i could bear thus far has been saltykov schedrin. check him out. i tried several translations of master and margarita, and was disappointed with each one. i recently went through about eighty percent of the twelve chairs, and just wasn't enjoying it enough to finish it. Bely was great too, even though there's some wonder at which translation is greater, the artistic flair one, or the one sanctioned by critics and based on the post-edit bely draft. I dunno.

I thought the meetings where they were all sharing intel and planning strategies, were some of the best parts of the novel. There's a strong sense of camaraderie and obligation, but also of imminent danger.

now that i look at the dates of the revolution, i realize schedrin doesn't count. yeah, fuck the soviets to be sure. check out saltykov anyway. really underknown guy. make sure you splurge on a good translation, the one i have smells of cat piss and is rife with errors.

I've wanted to read Bely's Petersburg. Your good friend Nabokov loved it, though.

yeah, Nabokov was a clever guy, I don't agree with him on everything, by any means, but he knew plenty of things. Petersburg is a book to be read and read again for sure.
I've gone through phases with Nabokov, i'm currently at "okay, okay, i'll think about lolita, even though i absolutely hated pnin and >muh bowl"
i do think the uncle theory makes plenty of sense and helps me adjust my sentiment on his pedophilic tendencies and whether he acted upon it beyond his butterflies. definitely was a creepy guy, dissecting butterfly genitalia.

I read Dracula when I was 15 and really enjoyed it. Back then I was not a connoisseur, though, constantly scrutinizing literary works as to style and distinctiveness. I just noticed how "real" and "sensible" it seemed, and how much better than all the ludicrous film adaptations. Making such fantastical stuff believable was rather impressive, I thought, and made it extraordinarily intriguing and enjoyable. Same goes for "The Phantom of the Opera" by Gaston Leroux. Pic unrelated.

haha, i read it at the same time and was just waiting for the sex scenes.

Well, at least you're honest.

I like Nabokov for much of the same reason that I like Harold Bloom, as weird as that might be to say. Nabokov was obviously a talented writer himself, where Bloom was not, but what makes me think of them both together is they both have an immense love for literature itself that is rare on its own. Nabokov liked to talk down and thought he was better than everyone and, sure, that might have been because he was a poof and, as we all know, deep down, all poofs think they're better than everyone, but no one can say he didn't know literature and love it as if it were a part of his soul and, as such, he really knew his stuff. I often think that way of Bloom, even though he's had some missteps over the years, there's not a soul who can not admire how much he loves literature. I wish I loved something as much as he loves literature. And cake.

note to self, scotch, mello yello, and cotton candy do not mix.

oh of course, i don't have any trouble saying the guy was brilliant and loved his literature, just wasn't my cup of tea necessarily, i had to stop reading his lecture on Anna Karenina, it was close to obsession, and I was waiting for him to describe the color of Kitty's bowel movements.
what? I was a horny kid in a literal child's PRISON. Dracula was interesting only so far as it wasn't Poe, who i devoured at the time. Just a palate cleanser between stories and puzzles. I'm sure if i went back it'd be a different story, I might even like it. but I'm happy to dislike it based on its distinct lack of pornography.

>Anna Karenina
I fucking hate that cunt. The character, I mean. Not the book. I fucking hate that cunt.

ha, you were supposed to, though, she represented the evil woman that Tolstoy wanted to enact vengeance against, to use as a mannequin to portray his devious desires. Let's be honest, he only pasted Levin and Kitty in there to try to make sure no one would notice. I noticed, though, I smelled the rat, the dead putrefied rat, clogging up Tolstoy's brain, clouding his style and purpose, and ruining any epiphanies he could have garnered if he had been candid about being an absolute prick, and written about that instead in a journal at length, and not bothered with soap operas with styrofoam morals.

Tolstoy reveals in "A Confession" that both War and Peace and Anna Karenina were bullshit in terms of the "message" they conveyed. He didn't know what the hell he believed and merely wrote in a manner that would make others praise him and admire his intellect. That is some serious humility, if true. Orwell did a similar thing in "Why I Write" where he admits a key reason for his writing was to show others his cleverness. Is most writing merely a cry for help?

how interesting. i might check out a confession.
probably not, but imwill keep that in mind, it's strange though, i'm not so sure i believe what he says there. It may be in some way comforting to think that even Tolstoy couldn't just be honest with himself.

I want that hot vampire babe to defile me