Vonnegut>Pynchon

why would i listen the opinion of a jew?

The thing about the characterization (there is none) in Gravity's Rainbow is an acceptable criticism and I was listening to all of that up to then with equanimity -- then he goes on to say, not only that GR's prose isn't as poetic as Vonnegut's, but that Mason & Dixon is "the same crap" as GR, discounting the completely brilliant and preternatural characterizations of Mason and Dixon. Fuck that kike.

Although to be fair I think we are beginning to value pretentiousness and density and obscurity a lot in literature from when Joyce's Ulysses hit the market and became The Big Book in Literary Criticism, so it's a valid point to make that we're not valuing clarity of style and concision enough in literature (while still being poetic, of course) --- as well as more "sentimental" and "old-fashioned" stuff as interesting, realistic, and well-developed characters.

Kikey kek
Same I agree with some of what he says but the rest especially when it comes to Pynchon is bs

Vonnegut is the Reddit of authors

boring

Lamo isn't this the guy who unironicly claims to have over 60 billion page views on his website?

>pynchon, delillo, wallace
>main writers of the 20th century

wew

Is this the guy who likes feet?

Post modernism is all the same.

Is his point really that difficult for you?

this guy thinks he's the GOAT poet. second place is his wife

Schneider's a strange guy. After reading his site for a few months I'm not entirely sure that he's sane. He's pretty much a living version of the 'Herbert Barrycone' or whatever it's called, you know what I mean. He talks about himself like he's established as a Pynchon or McCarthy-tier genius of his time despite only having his website and a pile of rejection letters from publishers. In his defense though he has a piece where he goes through his rejections point by point and does a good job of making them sound like plebs. Also his film critique is some straight up very good stuff.

It seems to me as though he can't write for shit and is just bitter at the success of others

There might be truth to that, but the quality of his criticism makes me think that he's at least very intelligent and well read.

agreed.
Also agreed. Pretentious means full of yourself, not complex. A complete idiot could be pretentious.

Inconsistent as fuck though in respect to where he applies his logic. Only to respected writers not to himself

This is the worst OP post I have ever seen.

Love you too faggot

3:32 - 3:38
>The title refers to the arch, the parabola of 'U2' rockets
Jesus man, get your act together.
>Google Dan Schneider
>literally who ?
Dropped

all these Dan Schneider books which I've seen, in a few of his videos now, compared to Brothers K and other masterworks seem completely unavailable. Where does one actually read The Vincetti Brothers?

Pretentious does have a use in certain circumstances, but most people do not use it in that circumstance. Instead, it is mostly used as how OP describes it ("I didn't like it because I thought it was too difficult") because the critic never backs up their assertion that its pretentious.

Oh man, I went down the Dan Schneider rabbit hole last night. Here's what I've learned. He is intelligent, but pompous and jealous of success. While reviewing contemporary books, his criticism always seems to focus on the artist's fame. He mentions his hatred of Wallace and Eggers in almost every review, and his reasoning is that Infinite Jest has unbelievable characters and no plot (which are weak criticisms, especially for an academic).

He will not accept that a contemporary writer is worthwhile (Wallace, Carver, Yates, Beattie, Cheever, the brothers Barthelme). I think he's one of those assholes who thinks every book needs to be an epic, or a moral floundering in the spirit of Dostoyevsky.

He's right about Joyce tho. Dubliners and Portrait are shining works of literature, but Ulysses is only occasionally brilliant

Who is this guy? I watched loads of his videos the last time this was posted and he has a lot to say, and he clearly knows a lot about what he's talking about, but his complete disdain for some writers is laughable. That video is proof enough, he's entitled to his opinions but he seemed to link GR with SH5 and then kept reading under that idea and so the whole book goes over his head.

The dude unironically lists himsepf as the world's greatest living poet. I mean, come on. His points about mfas are at least interesting but I just don't trust him, his wikipedia article has that weird 'self-written' vibe to it, his website looks like it was made pre dotcom bubble and never updated. But the weirdest part is when you hear the dude interview him, he sounds just as full of himself, but he hangs on Schneider's every word.

I hadn't a clue who he was until the people in the thread actually said who he was. Seems like a weird dude not even a has been but a never was

I agree wholeheartedly on your point of complaining about the plot when a novel like infinite jest even in structure dodges the necessity of a narrative. I'd disagree with him on Joyce tho although a pleb like me will never understand FW I wouldn't claim its tripe like he does

The article that he talked about, A Reader's Manifesto, didn't attack Pynchon at all (I don't think it attacked Wallace either, though it should have). I don't think his name was even brought up. I read the article in its entirety like a week ago.

>youtu.be/-_2IwfWGs-Y

>>Gravitys Rainbow trys to be like Slaughterhouse five

>Wew
>Pic related how I felt when he said this

Tl;dw: Dan Schneider (who?) likes Kurt Vonnegut and doesn't accept that people like different things than him.

>U2 rocket
That's not even the best of it. According to him in one of his videos, Martin Scorsese made an animated movie for Pixar called "Waldo"

youtube.com/watch?v=yJrj7WvTt8Y

daily reminder

Shit, this made me cringe so hard
Truly Dan Schneider is /ourguy/

>written in French,that's something even I can't do

For fucks sake Schneider
Is this some really developed character because what the actual fuck is he

youtu.be/X_mkPH8FSGA

>My wife and I are the greatest living writers

And yet no one has ever heard of you

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Don't post bowie around this time of year

Why's that I was effected by his passing as much as any fan. I thought it was appropriate

Debatable

Pynchon's novels read like they were shouted onto the page.

His "oeuvre" is the literary equivalent of a bugs bunny cartoon.

Also if you think that Delillo, DFW, and Pinecone were the "main writers of the 20th century" you need to expand your horizons.

>read like they were shouted onto the page

Wat