Would people still think he was such a good writer if he took out all those pointless references and "whoa so scientific" equations that he crammed his book with to impress pseuds and dumb English majors? Would they think he was still such a good writer if he didn't purposely obscure his books to make them seem like they were saying more than they actually were? Would people still think he was such a good writer if he didn't put in a lot of effort to try to roleplay as and project the identity of the "crazy wacky recluse genius"? No, because Pynchon is full of shit. His books are packed full of fluff to compensate for a lack of talent, much like a certain bandana wearing friend of ours. The aura around his books is from the aura of a false, constructed, contradictory and deeply narcissistic personality: "isn't it so cool how this secretive RECLUSIVE GENIUS packed his book full of SCIENTIFIC references and wacky pop-culture!? see, he's super smart, but he's also just another regular dude! He's not another stuffy old white guy, he's cool with the kids! He watches cartoons and listens to rock and roll, so cool and relatable but also super smart! See he's superior to everyone, smarter than everyone, but nah he doesn't care, he's just another cool guy, am i right my dudes?" Little of it has to do with the actual literary merit of his books, which is there, but surrounded also by a sea of bullshit. It's time for you pseuds to grow up and start reading authors with actual literary merit, authors that are true ARTISTS and not bullshitters. It's time for you to learn that the outward complexity of a novel and its ability to impress pseud undergrad English majors are NOT proportional to its literary merit. Pynchon's novels are nothing but books for narcissists, by narcissists. It's no wonder that his biggest reading audience is insecure, beta, undergrad English majors.
Would people still think he was such a good writer if he took out all those pointless references and "whoa so...
Not a native english speaker here, how hard is it to read Gravity's Rainbow in english?
difficult only in the most superficial ways: references, complexity of plot, and willingful obscurity, completely unrelated to depth of artistry
>Would people still think he was such a good writer if
Yes
>make them seem like they were saying more than they actually were
Most of the obscure parts in Pynchon novels do actually have a meaning, you only have to pay attention and maybe read it two times
He is very verbal and knowledgeable but I sincerely don't think he is a good writer.
Imagine being the kind of person who reads postmodern fiction and thinks the references to science and culture are just about the author showing off
Bleak
Look OP, I don't know why you're so angry about this, but this is clearly about something other than Pynch. What's really going on here?
the point is that the way in which he uses these references, no matter the justification he has behind it, makes for mediocre art, and yet brainlets like you are duped into thinking it's good because it's complex. Take for example Infinite Jest. Wallace purported to have justification for every complication in the novel, that everything that was difficult in the novel was in service of something, and yet this does not always make it so that the art itself is good. And yet, idiots like you think that it makes art good because of its ability to resolve complexity. No, that just shows that the author is smart, not that the art is good. Infinite Jest, although it is well-thought out and constructed, thematically sound and complex, it is for the most part, terribly written, an immature and shallow work. Pynchon is just another case of this. Of course, not all complexity is bad. The complexity of Ulysses is often "unnecessary," so to speak, and may even be less justified, thematically, than Pynchon's, in some cases, but the fact remains that the work is an incredible work of art in its ability to mirror consciousness, and much else besides that. One can search forever in analyzing the aesthetic depths of Ulysses, and can not same the same for Pynchon.
My mom passed away recently
so ididn't read any of this but doesn't pynchon look like he speaks in goofy's voice
ahyuck
Sorry to hear that.
But on the topic at hand, I think it didn't really appreciate IJ until I listened a lot more to DFW's reasons for writing it. Overall, the issue seems to be that this is the strain of post modern lit, that it was novel when it began (Ulysses) and has grown to be so common it's sickening.
A great example is that DFW apparently would fail kids when he was a professor , when they tried to write "clever" stories. Probably for the reasons you listedit was annoying and that most people aren't really all that clever and stories like that just end up being the author stating how smart they are.
All those references are like colorful sprinkles on a Pynchon Ice Cream Sunday.
Why did Pynchon look like an absolute mongoloid? He looks like a caricature of a redneck caveman
> Pynchon is another case of DFW
No, DFW is a terrible reader of Pynchon and a prime of example of people who read Pynchon and don't get him
sage
References and scientific references are such a minor part of pynchon that focusing on them like that makes it sound like you're only resenting their going over your head, as if they were attempts at pulling a fast one over the tasteful, effortlessly capable and discerning reader you think you are. Pynchon isn't DFW. He didn't cram all that stuff in his books just to make himself look smart. It only even stands out at all when you come from a narrow and otherwise uneducated humanities perspective. He worked in engineering and wrote with what he knew, used these concepts because he was interested in them, and then always went to the trouble of explaining them in the few cases when they were necessary to one's understanding of the corresponding metaphors and of the narration they were part of. The one aspect of his writing which can be said to be seeking deliberate complexity, and which is appreciated for it, is the prose. The rest of it, the maximalism, that's research, background detailing.
seeing that you have such fucking poor reading comprehension just reinforces my point that all Pynchon fans are pseuds. I'm currently working on my Phd in Math, by the way, so no, the references did not go over my head.
yet the simple point went over your head that you sound like one of these morons guffawing at how preTENtious an actually simple book is for using what they think are big words from the dictionary
He studied engineering for two years, and calculus fucked his shit up so hard he left for the Navy and when he came back switched to English.
It's already been explained to you why we think Pynchon books and his style are actually good, if you really want to play the part of the insulting illuminated patrician, go on. I think that Pynchon's complexity is highly justified by the sheer beauty that you can sometime find in his books. Plus, I'm generally interested in things labeled as "complex" or "multi-layered". If you don't want to debate, just fuck off
>asian memorizer man thinks his literary opinions have any weight
take it to mathoverflow nerd
>and "whoa so scientific" equations
integral of 1 / cabin d (cabin)
= log cabin + C
= houseboat
whoah, scientific all righty.
So let me get this straight. You tried to read GR but it was too difficult so you came to lit to complain about it?
Have you actually read one of his books?
>my mom passed away recently
Should've replied senpai
Yeah, it's endless reference-spotting and half-baked essay fodder, taken a safe distance away from anything remotely human. Some people like that though.
Why is it all of you plebs cry references when readers who do appreciate Pynchon actually ignore them? Is it literally autism?
> Infinite Jest, although it is well-thought out and constructed, thematically sound and complex
Why would depth of artistry make a book difficult to read?