Back when Gravity's Rainbow was first published I had a loose connection with some "intellectuals". Now one of these guys was indeed extremely intelligent but the others struck me as pretenders. They went on and on about how wonderful the book was but there were never any specifics, no questions, no real discussion. Just praise.

So I got a copy and, like you, it started well but soon became what I call bad writing. If I need to slog then I'm done. I did that with some required texts but life, to me, is too short to slog.

I've heard people have that same complaint about Beloved, by Morrison. But that book made good sense to me even though I read it twice in a row to really clarify it.

So, my lame conclusion is that we all read and understand differently. Good luck with the book!!

Unironically my school teaches an entire course on this book

It's always been my motto that if you don't like reading a book you should skip it, no matter whatever reputation it has. Thanks for the good luck though!

Just finished the Crying of Lot 49 for a class. There’s more meaning there than is initially apparent.

Yes, absolutely. I went through this reading Pynchon as well as James Joyce. The first time it happened was while reading Ulysses. I was struggling through it, trying hard to parse out the meanings and references… and then I just let go, stopped trying, and allowed the text to become like a sea of words I was floating on. I guess I believe that style of writing is meant to be instinctive and evocative, to make you feel, to activate your deeper instincts less so than your processing and analysis functions.

Could I tell you the plot of these books? No. Am I one of the few people I know who actually read them and didn’t give up in agony? Yes.

No idea what the authors would think of this approach, but it is truly a lovely experience! Glad you found your own way to connect and enjoy a very experimental text. Congratulations.

Oh, and I’ll echo someone else’s comment that this style of writing is also just kind of bad. I consider it sort of abusive to the reader. After Pynchon, I decided I never again needed to read some white guy banging on and showing off all the words he knows (sorry David Foster Wallace)

Edit: lol I forgot a basic rule: never tell book people you don’t like DFW

That's how I feel about Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun.

That book was confusing as fuck. Was constantly just going like “uhhhh, k.”

Well it took a college course to explain it...

You never! Did the Kenosha Kid?

Guess that makes me a feel a little better about it, lol.

I love the surreal passages of Gravity’s Rainbow and Ulysses and how the language just washes over you. It’s especially wonderful if the book is read out loud. But I love the more straightforward parts too, the literary and historical allusions, the sly comments. I know I can always pick up these books again, any time, and find something new to think about.

That’s one I need to revisit. I remember enjoying it and the constant stream of weird things bf s happening but I know I missed a ton

Both Joyce and Pynchon wrote during lucid experiences when they were...uhm...chemically enhanced.

So you are reading intoxication thinking.

Similar to word salads, which are a trip if youve never heard one.

I read a chapter and then went on with my life

Its actually Neuromancer, that has that effect. Everything is written in "future slang" so you have no idea what is going on but also know exactly what they mean.

[deleted]

The ending 100 pages of Crime and Punishment had me like this. There's a lot of biblical imagery as well that had my theological obsessive brain feeling very happy.

Yea I wouldn't want to read something that doesn't allow me to follow it. I can understand if something is beyond my reading level or vocabulary, but if its purposely incomprehensible I think it's dumb and pretentious.

I think it's a common misconception that Pynchon talks down to the reader or is just trying to make himself look smart. On the contrary, I feel like he writes in a very challenging way, but he expects the reader to be able to get there, too, with a bit of effort. He trusts the reader's intelligence.

And he's clearly not writing for everybody - there's a specific type of reader who will pick up books like that and love them, and others who won't, any that's okay.

Fun fact: William Gibson is a huge fan of Gravity's Rainbow and has said that it absolutely influenced his writing in Neuromancer!

Yes! Gravity's Rainbow is incredible - one of my all-time favorites. Hard as hell, especially the first time, but so, so worth it. Glad you're liking it - it's quite a journey, so just hang in there and enjoy the ride.

Also, come over to r/ThomasPynchon - if you have questions or want to chat about GR with fellow weirdos, it's a great community! :)

I mean, Pynchon is totally readable for a lot of people. And I’d argue several of his novels are easily approachable for anyone reading above a high school level.

I prefer not to read work by people of any race or gender who are just banging on and showing off all the words they know.

Honestly, I think Ulysses is meant to be understood lol, you just have to work a bit for it. If anything, it's the ultimate analysis and process novel, kind of a culmination of what was canonical Western literature at that point while also pointing towards something new.

Finnegans Wake is a totally different beast, tho.

When I read Beloved, the chapter in Beloved’s own voice nearly broke me. It took a Google and several re-reads to understand the basics of what Morrison was trying to convey there.

I would also say the entirety of Cloud Atlas was like this for me (and the middle chapter is probably closest to what you describe here). There is just so, so much in those books that you could probably read them a dozen times and still find things missed on previous reads.

Oh shoot, should have thought about posting this on that subreddit lol. I will definitely do that!

Neuromancer is in my list so now I'm even more excited to try it in the future c:

Not really while reading a book, but playing through the twist ending of MGS2 for the first time as a kid left me with a sense of disorientation afterwards. I felt like someone had just turned everything upside down because out of nowhere the familiar gaming experience had radically transformed from the familiar to the surreal. Whatever I thought the medium (games, books, etc.) was capable of, apparently there's more to it than I could have ever imagined at the time. It was an experience so unique because it was so hard for me to fathom personally, but it's also an experience shared by other people too. Gravity's Rainbow was a complete reimagining of what I thought a story in literature could live up to. Reading can sometimes feel like a private sharing of knowledge because it's a solitary activity and oftentimes the people you know in real life haven't read the book, so it can feel like you possess your own inside knowledge about something, but Gravity's Rainbow is so discombobulating that the experience is almost wholly unique for each reader. You can get 4 people together to discuss the book, and come away with 4 different perspectives from having read it. It's both disorienting for the individual, but also disorienting for everyone who's read it, and the result is that everyone comes away with their own private interaction with Pynchon, having only seen their own sliver of it, and all the individual perspectives never entirely adding up to anything conclusive. It's a rare genius to have written something that remains so personal for the reader, and yet so elusive for those who have read it.

Thank you! Also, I wouldn't call it bad but to each his own, I don't really understand the downvotes, it's reasonable to have a negative opinion about any writer.

The entire book by Woolf made me feel that way

I’ve known for a long time that this is an unpopular opinion! People hold these authors in very high esteem, probably explicitly due to how challenging it is to read their work.

I read a lot of classics and various styles of literature, and for me there’s a stark difference between an author who’s able to move me with a powerful story vs. one who seems to be writing mostly for themselves. I’m glad literature seems to have mostly gotten over that style. It was an interesting trend but thankfully an ephemeral one.

I definitely see that point of view, but I was shocked at how much more fun it was when I shifted to the immersive experience. It was something about the vocabulary and structure, where it seemed every word and phrase was intended to make you feel something rather than think it. It helped that I had the lexicon to be able to capture the nuances without getting lost in analysis, too.

Yes, I had to put down Infinite Jest around page 750 because the benefit could not justify the effort I was putting in. I loved Ulysses tho (although I had to punctuate the last chapter). Also Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 is too much to lift, much less read BUT I listened to it an a roadtrip from LA to ATX. Crazy coincidence: I was driving through El Paso during the Ciudad Juarez section.

Funny thing, 2666 was very easy for me to read and it's still one of my favorites books of all time, I think it's way easier to approach if Spanish is your first language.

MGS2 is an amazing game. Anyways, I'm starting to see why so many people love this book, it really is incredible.

Well I can only read English and I think Bolaño is an “intermittent genius.” Maybe it is a translation issue but, more likely, it’s me.

Some other people have mentioned Beloved on the comments, I think I will add them to my list. Cloud Atlas too.

I felt really mad after wasting my time reading** Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China which discussed, in detail, the beginning of the beginning and how the beginning began.

**required reading for ancient Chinese history 🙄

Cloud Atlas was amazing for me. He writes in multiple voices, and each one is way different than all the rest. Just phenomenal.

If it makes a difference, I tried to watch the movie afterward and didn’t last ten minutes before I stopped.

I thought your English and post was very articulate. I understood you completely.

A Clockwork Orange blows my mind. I haven't read it physically but I've listened to the audiobook. I whole book told in this first person POV and writen in the slang language of the main character and rapist, murderering criminal. In a way, it protects you from the horrors of what the gangs do. But once you translate it, you really feel the weight of the scene. And bad for the victims.

I also have a similar section in my book that kind of mimics the speech pattern of 'Nadsat'--the Cockney like underground slang the young of the country speak.

The immersion approach is great for Ulysses and Gravity’s Rainbow, especially for a first read. During rereads is the time to really dive in, because a first read gets you somewhat oriented so the novel doesn’t feel quite as alien.

A few of Pynchon’s books are like that. I also use that approach with r/JosephMcElroy and r/Arno_Schmidt.

Yeah, I think he’s very, very accessible, especially Vineland, which is like Pynchon smoked some weed and riffed on 1980s movies and daytime TV for 400 pages. It’s a pretty good hint at what Tommy was up to during his 17 gap between Gravity’s Rainbow and Vineland.

It was probably the “some white guy” comment, not namedropping Wallace.

Yeah, maybe I should have been more specific: “upper middle class 20th century white guy who had the privilege to gain a huge vocabulary and the opportunity to be paid to bang on and show off all the words he knows whether anyone wants to read them or not”

You okay?

I can’t be the first person to point out the preponderance of overeducated & overconfident white guys who got published in the 20th century, can I? Downvoting my opinion and implying I’m somehow unwell to hold it is a bit disrespectful. If you don’t agree, move on then.

All I did was point out that I think you misdiagnosed the downvotes, so you responded with 10x more. That’s what we internetters call a smidge unhinged. But don’t worry, upvotes and downvotes have no real-world value.

Man, you’re taking this really personal.

How so? Aren’t you and I just trading unpopular opinions?

You might need to beef up your rhetorical skills, friend. Come back when you’re interested in having a good faith debate! Until then, seriously, you can just move on with your day; this thread is a conversational dead end.

I accept your surrender.

Bless your heart

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]