Printable View
In fact most of us here commonly loathe books like ulysses, the sound and the fury and the rest following that genre. Yet some critics vehemently and tirelessly keep on writing about such loathsome books commendably. This is sheer arrogance and it is like seeking for the substance when peeling of an onion and all you will arrive at is nothing. You may read such hooks with a lot of hope of being wiser but in fact all you will end up is learning a few rhetorical things only.
I bought Gravity’s Rainbow and Foucault’s Pendulum about the same time. A friend who loved GR said I’d prefer it to F’s R. I duly read them both with three months and much preferred Eco: shows up the modern fascination with the esoteric in place of both common humanity and religious tradition:
There was no secret, that the real secret was to let the cells proceed according to their own instinctive wisdom, that seeking mysteries beneath the surface reduced the world to a foul cancer. Eco Foucault’s Pendulum page 567
And he promised salvation to all: you only had to love your neighbour. Eco Foucault’s Pendulum Page 620
I worked hard at understanding Pynchon, reading with a pencil in my hand to mark the bits I thought significant. Surely it’s a meditation on the meaningless of life in the face of nuclear destruction, so language, sexuality and everything becomes just an occasion for puerile adolescent joking. But I do like one quote:
But the Reverend Dr Paul de la Nuit is not fond of the MMPI. “Rosie, are there scales for measuring interpersonal traits?” Hawk’s nose probing probing, eyes lowered in politic meekness. “Human values, trust, honesty, love?Is there – forgive me the special pleading – a religious scale by any chance?” Gravity’s Rainbow page 95 "
Pretty loathsome sexist homophobic book though to my mind. But I read it.
Blaze,Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I understand - as another ESOL speaker particularly - and respect your right not to like certain books. However, I would also strongly urge you not to pass such hasty comments, calling certain books "loathsome" and anyone who might happen to enjoy them "arrogant".
I have to admit I could not stand Faulkner while at university; however, I now know that it was owing to my lack of understanding of his works (which stemmed from the fact that my English was not mature enough at the time). After reading his works again after almost 20 years, I list him as one of the best writers I have read.
That is not to say that anyone who does not like a work lacks understanding but just an example from my personal experience. Again, it is possible to read, understand and not to like a book but to claim that it was loathsome is unnecessary and even over the top, I'd say.
In fact most of us here commonly loathe books like ulysses, the sound and the fury and the rest following that genre. Yet some critics vehemently and tirelessly keep on writing about such loathsome books commendably. This is sheer arrogance and it is like seeking for the substance when peeling of an onion and all you will arrive at is nothing. You may read such hooks with a lot of hope of being wiser but in fact all you will end up is learning a few rhetorical things only.
The only sheer arrogance here is the assumption that because YOU struggle to understand something or find it difficult to grasp... or just don't like it, as a consequence it must be bad and all those who find artistic merit in such works are lying of full of themselves. You even have the arrogance to assume that you are the standard reader at LitNet... the one who doesn't "get" or like challenging literature... and that this standard of the lowest common denominator should be the measure of artistic worth. Please.
Just in case my use of the word "loathsome" gives offence. It wasn't because I didn't understand it, but because I had a definite understanding. My friend who says it's his favourite book is gay, and I've seen women readers here admire it. So they can't find it homophobic or sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruggerlad
I will admit that the scene when Col Pudding is forced to eat his own excrement by a dominatrix did make my tummy turn over. But I don't think Pynchon is writing pretentious drivel - he knows what he's doing, but I don't like it.
I agree with you. I had to read it in german at school and it was really difficult. To tell you the truth, I have no idea how it sounds in english.
The idea is not that everything that is difficult is bad just that not everything is for everybody. John Dos Passos was a contemporary of James Joyce and he wrote in a similar style as Joyce. He wrote three books that should be read a one. The 42nd Parallel, 1919 and The Big Money. Together it is more than 1200 pages and contains beautiful passages like this one here:
skating on the pond next the silver company's mills where there was a funny fuzzy smell from the dump whale oil soap somebody said it was that they used in cleaning the silver knives and spoons and forks putting shine on the for sale there was shine on the ice early black ice that rang like a sawblade just scratched white by the first skaters I couldn't learn to skate and kept falling down look out for muckers everybody said bohunk and polak kids put rocks in their snowballs write dirty walls up on walls do dirty things up alleys their folks work in the mills
we clean young American Rover Boys handy with tools Deerslayers played hockey Boy Scouts and cut figure eights on the ice Achilles Ajax Agamemnon I couldn't learn to skate and kept falling down
That is from a segment of the book called Camera Eye. Surreal dreamlike passages which separate the chapters. It's not a fast read obviously and each chapter is told by a different character so it becomes difficult to remember what happened to who. The novel is no more or less difficult than Ulysses but I don't like James Joyce. There's nothing more to it. I use this example because the two authors are very similar. I did not like Gravity's Rainbow. I read another novel by Pynchon that I liked very much. Gravity's Rainbow I found to be too much. Dude must think he's Jesus. Yesterday I read Slaughterhouse-Five in one sitting. Some books you can read straight through others you have to stop and absorb what you've read.
Some of you sound like this "I don't like books that are too hard." Some like this "I love books that are really hard, they make me feel good about myself." I don't like Shakespeare I think he's dull. Some people think Shakespeare was something more than some dude that **** his pants as a kid and grew up to learn how to wipe his own ***. There is no total truth. Shakespeare wasn't the greatest writer ever. He wrote stuff, that is a fact. Was it well written? That too can be debated but less so. In the end it's all personal opinion. Liking Shakespeare doesn't mean you're smarter than anyone.
Some of me very often says: "I like books that are considered as strange, difficult because of the form".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
:thumbs_up
The hardest book I completed reading would be Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard. But it's more philosophy/religion than literature. Crime and Punishment took some time and effort but I don't know if I should say it's "difficult" - it's more of its sheer length and weight rather than being esoteric or using obscure language. Another somewhat difficult book I've read was Democracy and Tradition by Jeffrey Stout, again, a philosophy and political book rather than literary. It took some effort to understand a couple of Shakespeare's longer plays, but that's more archaic language due to its historical time rather than "difficulty" as understood commonly
If you ask me on the hardest book I've attempted to read without success, that would be As I Lay Dying two years ago.
:blush:You might have chosen his Sickness unto Death which presumes the reader is literate in half a dozen languages. I tried but did not complete it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Pringle
I gave up on that one after fifty pages. I agree that it isn't literature. Like most philosophy & religious books it doesn't delight through content *and* form. Maybe the content (his ideas...) are interesting, but I'll be looking for someone who can express them better...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Pringle
Where is Wally in Hollywood?
Can never manage to find all those little bits and pieces.
I've tried with the first chapter of that book and was like WTF is he talking about. It's much harder than Fear and TremblingQuote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Why would the word "loathsome" applied to a book give offence to any but the thinnest of skin?