What do you think of the following postmodern novels by various authors?

[Emerald Hill]

Gravity's Rainbow, V, Vineland, Infinite Jest, and House of Leaves.

To be honest, the only one I liked was House of Leaves, a really good novel. Great plot and characters, but I have to mark it down because of the Johnny Truant narrative, which wasn't a patch on the Zampano story. Surprisingly, this was probably the easiest of the books to read. Infinite Jest and Vineland were mediocre, and V and Gravity's Rainbow were terrible. How do people enjoy GR so much? It was a bit too experimental, I thought. I couldn't even finish it. Given my chequered history with postmodern books, what would you recommend I read, if anything?

[dfloyd]

I would read some other period of literature until my reading ability increased. Not liking Pynchon is probably not because the author is not to your tast, bur because your reading ability needs honed. Try Blood Meridian by Cormack McCarthy for a different post modern writer. Of course you may find him even more difficult than Pynchon.

[mal4mac]

Would reading another period make any difference? For instance, if you read the hundred greatest 19th century novels would that make any difference to your ability to appreciate Pynchon? Maybe some. But enough? With 'hard works' I find notes help immensely. Is there a version of Gravity's Rainbow available with good footnotes? The bumpf on amazon says:

"You will enjoy Pynchon's cartoon inferno far more if you consult Steven Weisenburger's brief companion to the novel, which sorts out Pynchon's blizzard of references to science, history, high culture, and the lowest of jokes. "

Might help.

I liked 'Blood Meridian', but really needed some footnotes to appreciate it "fully". It's full of references to 'Wild West things' that aren't in my concise OED. I managed to get though it by guessing meanings (I couldn't face looking everything up in Wikipedia, I was looking for some light relief from Dante, not another 'hard study'.) It's certainly a very interesting read.

I guess the main point is to expect these post-modernist works to be as hard as Dante, and expect to put in the same amount of effort understanding them - that is, have notes, dictionaries, wikipedia, etc to hand. Of course you then have to ask if they are worth that much effort? Pynchon gets a lot of praise from the best critics, so maybe he is, if anyone is. I tend to reserve the 'best hour' of my day for 'hard works'. But given that there are hundreds of works (from Homer to Joyce) that fit this category I'm not sure if I'll ever get to Pynchon.

[Babbalanja]

Just out of curiosity, by what standard do you judge Infinite Jest "mediocre"?

Regards,

Istvan

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Try the novels of Alain Robbe-Grillet.

[dfloyd]

I know that reading some lesser books hones your reading ability. There were several books I couldn't read, or I found very difficult. Among these were Chrome Yellow and Brave New World by Huxley, 1984 by Orwell, The Possessed by Dostoyevsky, and War and Peace by Tolstoy. My point is don't start with the most complex books. Too many on this forum and other places criticize books as being dull etc. when the fault really lies with the reader.

All the notes, plot outlines etc. wont help where more and more reading will. And the novice reader is not likely to consult criticism, notes, outlines etc just to read a book he has heard about. Books are like dating; if you've never dated a girl before, you don't ask out the prettiest girl in your crowd. You will likely be refused, so you have to start a little lower. When starting to read seriously, pick the less difficult books until you advance your reading abilities and vocabulary. You'll know when it's time to tackle Homer, Dante, Boccaccio, Melville, Joyce, and others.

Concerning vocabulary: It is important to have a recognizable vocabulary of Many thousands of words. In a recent thread, a poster said that a vocabulary of 10,000 words is sufficient. It is not. The more complex books require a recognition vacabulary of 10 times that amount. By recognizing vocabulary, I mean that when a words is used in a sentence, you can recognize it and determine what it means in that sentence. I have been tested and have a recognition vocabulary of over 100,000 words. Having to use a dictionary several times per reading page, slows the reading and makes it more difficult.

[AuntShecky]

Maybe you could back up a little and tell us what you mean by "postmodern." Some people bandy that term around for anything written after 1980 or for fiction that had been possibly influenced by Derrida. But some of the criteria for a "postmodern" novel go back to Ulysses by James Joyce or way, way back to Tristram Shandy.

When I hear the term "postmodern," I do think of the works of David Foster Wallace, but also those by Donald Barthelme and Richard Powers.

Here's some interesting web pages to check out on the topic:



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/07/the-mostly-complete-annotated-and-essential-postmodern-reading-list.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature

http://english.emory.edu/Bahri/Metafiction.html

[sixsmith]

Judging by the books and authors the OP mentions, I think he or she is using the term postmodernism in reference to the literary movement (such as it is) as opposed to work produced after modernism. [P]ostmodernism is a pretty broad church, but I don't think Cormac McCarthy would get a seat.

Personally, I share your distaste for Pynchon. He is capable of exquisite prose but I think his novels, in spite of their incessant activity and prohibitive length, are very limited. They are for the most part (and I'm borrowing this characterization from James Wood) allegories that refuse to allegorize. On first sighting, the screwy characters and hallucinatory narratives hold the allure of meaning, of some return on one’s investment. Yet halfway through the book, you realize that this is all he’s got: one overstuffed, hysterical set piece after another (many of which are neither funny nor clever). Nothing is revealed or conveyed except Pynchon's tentacular intelligence and his obsession with conspiracy.

Speaking of conspiracy (Postmodern heavyweights), I’m a big fan of Don DeLillo: White Noise in particular. It’s a confronting and funny meditation on, amongst other things, death, family, media saturation and the follies of academia. It’s also DeLillo’s most consistent prose achievement: he’s a fine writer but owing largely to his very prominent sociological streak, is capable of producing some real dross.

What about something overtly experimental? I'm re-reading Calvino's If On A Winter's Night a Traveler and I'm amazed anew at its brilliance.

[Rores28]

After reading some of both Oblivion and Brief Interviews with Hideous Men I find it pretty hard to believe that Infinite Jest is just mediocre. At least I hope it isn't :(

I would check out some of his shorter fiction and see if you feel the same way. For me Wallace is a real literary gem and I'd hate for some of his brilliance to slip through your fingers because of one book. Though I can certainly understand how his style could seem annoying and unnecessarily cumbersome. But at least with the shorter fiction you don't have such a long commitment to it.

[keilj]

My point is don't start with the most complex books. Too many on this forum and other places criticize books as being dull etc. when the fault really lies with the reader.



true. But, sometimes a long boring book is just a long boring book

Or sometimes a reader just may not like a certain author's writing style/choice of things to write about, so on

It doesn't always mean that the reader is immature - but sometimes it might