Convince me to read it

What's it like? Why did you like it if you've read it? What's so special about it?

Gassposter? Plz explain me, senpai.

What the fuck do I care if you read it or not. What a shit fucking thread. I hope you feel bad about being this fucking reliant on other people to do any fucking thing that you can't even pick up a fucking book by yourself.

It's not a book you'll be likely to enjoy unless the (original) meme trilogy was compelling for you.

summer

Not OP, but you're an idiot, desu.

To Gassposter, it would be really appreciated. I've heard that it's quirkily creative and chaotic, along the lines of Ulysses, House of Leaves, Gravity's Rainbow, etc. But beyond that, I can't find a strong review of it.

An urbane, reflective review on the depths of its inventiveness and the main character's downward spiral into dementia would be great.

Bumping for Gassposter--n-not that I like him or anything. Desu.

It's an overwrought mess. Don't read it.

Read On Being Blue. It's much better and does what he does best, "le quirky professor man. srsly!"

While we're at it McElroy and Vollman are shit.

Agreed. Same with John Hawkes and DFW. Gaddis is okay, but also a preachy, prancy, primpy, rambler. Some good prose but a lot of inconsistencies and awkward prose in between. Good dialogue writer, except for the black servant character in the Recognitions who was like a bad mix of Faulkner black character dialogue and the primpy dialogue of the rest of the characters. Ulysses is well written but says nothing, so Joyce is pretty much worthless, a pretentious wordsmith and that's all. Borges is a gimmicky and overrated charlatan. Don Delillo has the same mediocrity of Gaddis, with emphasis on the rambling, and with even worse prose. Stoner is very mediocre, a sentimental sob story for depressed teenagers. Dostoevsky is terrible. A complete charlatan. The Brothers Karamazov is the work of a preaching bible thumper who doesn't want to admit he's a bible thumper. Terribly written with uninteresting caracatures of characters. DFW needs no explanation. Pynchon's Mason and Dixon is decent, but the rest of his work is garbage. Gravity's Rainbow is one of the greatest literary failures of all time. A work whose message could have been condensed to an essay, instead to be puffed up with overwritten and incomprehensible prose, masturbatory references to prove the author's education to the audience, and a thin "low brow" persona to create a personality that pretentious undergraduates can admire without looking like they're pretentious.

Keep going dude. Do Proust and Tolstoy next.

>Dostoevsky is terrible.

... where the fuck did that come from?

anyways your post is just a string of insults... but I agree with them. Most of these "postmodern" authors are self-obsessed with some sort of simple idea that they can make sound elegant through allusion, obfuscation, and perhaps even absence of the idea.

A lot of good writers who aren't exactly academic darlings who were influenced by these nerds, though. Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, etc.

Congrats, you hate everybody but have nothing positive to say. Excellent shitpost.

I wanna hear more about John Hawkes from you lol

to me he's the only one thats tolerable from this "postmodern" circus

>Stoner is very mediocre
oi vey m8 ar yoo havin a gigl o'er thair

Calling all Gassposters!

I'm battling a pretty brutal sinus infection, so I really can't offer more than this: The Tunnel is a beautiful, disturbing, and highly complex book that, among other things, addresses the nature of history, art, language, and, at it's core, the fascism of the heart--the domination of active emotions by passive ones, such as envy and spite. If you like the virtuoso prose performances of Joyce, the bitterness of Gaddis, and the playfulness of Pynchon, you'll like; if you are, on the inside, a terrible, hateful human being who finds himself fed up with humanity as a whole, you'll enjoy it; but if you do enjoy none of those things, and are a kind, decent, well-adjusted person--unlikely, considering where you are--then you will probably hate it.

To all Gassposters: what exactly do I have to read before I read the Tunnel to understand it? I heard that there are a shit load of references in it a la Ulysses, and don't want all of them to go over my head. Are they unimportant or inconsequential or should I read up on anything in particular?

Try out the other entries of the meme trilogy

It would definitely be good to be familiar with Western philosophy as a whole, and reading Rilke certainly won't hurt.

*tetrology

No, trilogy.

B-but there's four...

He hasn't actually read anything by him. Or any of those other authors. In fact, I doubt he even can read after seeing all that completely inaccurate textual diarrhea he just spewed about all those authors/books.

Thanks! I can't speak for OP, but this is exactly the kind of experienced incisiveness I was looking for.

95% sure this is bait, but, on the off chance it isn't, I would like to hear who you consider to be a good writer.

You're welcome, I guess.

I actually fit all of your criteria. I'm reasonably well integrated with society (I have an enjoyable family life and job), a despiser of reprobates and selfish people, and love what I've read from Pynchon, Joyce, and Gaddis. I find the taste on Veeky Forums well suited to my own!

Well, you will probably--probably--like it.

Anyone read Middle C?

>read all of Western philosophy
okay looks like that one's getting removed from my backlist.

>all the Gass/Gaddis worship

it's gone too far. surely only a matter of time before Veeky Forums decides it hates both of these guys

Can we kick 2666 out of there ?

I mean, it's not completely necessary to enjoy it, but it helps with some of the musings of the narrator.

2666 should form a le grimdark meme trilogy with House of Leaves and DeLillo's Underworld

then it wouldn't be a trilogy, now would it?

You guys should hang around Veeky Forums enough to know that is the work of a masterful bloomposter. The giveaway?

>M&D is decent
>GR is one of the greatest literary failures of all time

this guy gets it

stay cucked Veeky Forums

>DFW needs no explanation
kek

>memeing bloom

even if that were true (which it's not), am i supposed to be impressed by the parroting of a bloated windbag who will keel over soon?

You're not, and you're damn right not to be. The guy you're responding to is a literal meme.

I can only speak to my own perspective, but memes are humorous to me, not impressive or awesome

with avatarfagging like that, i bet you're a doughy virgin.

what a sad life you live.

name a good author

nice ad hominem

I don't care for your argument, so it's not even fancy latin (which you clearly don't even understand properly).

Namecalling is all you deserve, fag.

you obviously haven't been to this sub much before, dipshit, back to lereddit with you!

>commits her tampax to the trash.
any author who resorts to Tampax on the first page i think can be safely avoided user, go back to what's comfy.

tolstoy was obsessed with the french, and Anna Karenina was dimestore romance claptrap.

>You had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them out of you, big fat fellows, long windy ones, quick little merry cracks and a lot of tiny little naughty farties ending in a long gush from your hole. It is wonderful to fuck a farting woman when every fuck drives one out of her. I think I would know Nora's fart anywhere. I think I could pick hers out in a roomful of farting women. It is a rather girlish noise not like the wet windy fart which I imagine fat wives have. It is sudden and dry and dirty like what a bold girl would let off in fun in a school dormitory at night. I hope Nora will let off no end of her farts in my face so that I may know their smell also.


Why is Gass such a freak? How could anyone read this degenerate?

OP here, thanks, this was what i was looking for.
Get well soon, fartposter.