Gravity's Rainbow has a reputation for difficulty, and a deserved one. However, I believe that the messages it contains are almost necessary for effective conceptualization of the interlocking...
Gravity's Rainbow has a reputation for difficulty, and a deserved one. However, I believe that the messages it contains are almost necessary for effective conceptualization of the interlocking systems that govern our world today. It's also a lot of fun alongside the pain.
This article does an excellent job outlining those insights and joys found within the text, and explains to a large extent what a curious onlooker should know when deciding whether or not to read this postwar magnum opus.
Gravity's Rainbow is by far my favorite novel, and the (very generous) gift from my wife of a first edition is one of my prized possessions. This is a great article laying out why the book is...
Gravity's Rainbow is by far my favorite novel, and the (very generous) gift from my wife of a first edition is one of my prized possessions.
This is a great article laying out why the book is (still) so important, and—maybe more importantly—just damn good fun cover to cover.
The one thing I'll say, is that I'm usually pretty put off by discussions of books' "difficulty." I always feel there's a kind of machismo to those discussions. As in, "I read the 'difficult' book and that makes me oh so smart." I feel that it puts people off reading books that they are very much capable of reading, books they would get a whole lot out of. Gravity's Rainbow is one of those books. Anyone can read it, even if you don't understand every single line (I certainly didn't). I feel like calling a book "difficult" doesn't add anything. (/rant)
(I recognize you weren't trying to start an argument, and I'm not either. But, in the spirit of discussion:) In defense of my reference to Gravity's Rainbow's difficulty in my submission...
(I recognize you weren't trying to start an argument, and I'm not either. But, in the spirit of discussion:)
In defense of my reference to Gravity's Rainbow's difficulty in my submission statement, I'll just say that I was definitely meaning it more with respect to the active use of negative dialectics and an expression of sympathy for those who find the style abstruse and the subject matter unpleasant than as a brag.
Seriously, every article about this book calls it hard, every amateur reviewer either says it was hard but worth reading or it was a waste of effort to simply drag their eyes across the pages, my own first experience of the book was defined by absolute overwhelm.
Should I just ignore all that context? Should I pretend that the book didn't take more effort to understand than any other classic I'd read? Especially since the book is designed to offend and disgust and drive the reader crazy, this isn't about achievement or machismo, it's about setting people up with the right frame of expectations: it's a convoluted book that expects the reader to do a lot, and if a prospective reader isn't aware of that, they seem more likely to never pick it back up than it seems like a warning will put them off it. Besides, when the discourse about a book is filled with its 'difficulty', doesn't pretending it isn't challenging to understand situate yourself as above even the consideration of such challenges?
First off, I want to say that my original comment was more about the opening to the article you shared, not your SS. You're bringing a lot of thought and nuance up against what was a one-sided...
First off, I want to say that my original comment was more about the opening to the article you shared, not your SS. You're bringing a lot of thought and nuance up against what was a one-sided thought dump from me. I agree with what you're saying!
I think I might really have more of a problem with the specific words "difficult" and "challenging," implying that a book is—well—a challenge or difficulty to be overcome. There are just better, more descriptive ways to talk about books. Gravity's Rainbow is thematically dense, allusive, the writing syntactically complex. Setting people's expectations is good, I feel you. But I think there are better ways of setting those expectations outside of the discourse of "difficulty." Basically, as a lover of Pynchon and a lot of so-called "difficult" literature, I want more people to be reading this stuff!
I see, thanks for clarifying. I didn't find the article lacking in expressiveness regarding those things, but I do agree about the obtuseness of that framing. Often though, it seems like using...
I see, thanks for clarifying. I didn't find the article lacking in expressiveness regarding those things, but I do agree about the obtuseness of that framing. Often though, it seems like using jargon has an even more alienating effect than the assertion of challenge. It's a tricky conversation in general, a lot of people these days aren't ever taught to read complex prose or poetry and find themselves insecure at the mention of Literature, and plenty of jackasses peacocking their copy of Infinite Jest have poisoned the well around those who do have the skill. It seems like if you go into detail, anyone who isn't already familiar with that sort of art just tunes out, if you ignore the difficult aspects then you're setting people up for failure, and if you express them in simple terms you're feeding into the "I read this Big, Important Book, and deserve accolades" sort of vibe.
Gravity's Rainbow has a reputation for difficulty, and a deserved one. However, I believe that the messages it contains are almost necessary for effective conceptualization of the interlocking systems that govern our world today. It's also a lot of fun alongside the pain.
This article does an excellent job outlining those insights and joys found within the text, and explains to a large extent what a curious onlooker should know when deciding whether or not to read this postwar magnum opus.
Gravity's Rainbow is by far my favorite novel, and the (very generous) gift from my wife of a first edition is one of my prized possessions.
This is a great article laying out why the book is (still) so important, and—maybe more importantly—just damn good fun cover to cover.
The one thing I'll say, is that I'm usually pretty put off by discussions of books' "difficulty." I always feel there's a kind of machismo to those discussions. As in, "I read the 'difficult' book and that makes me oh so smart." I feel that it puts people off reading books that they are very much capable of reading, books they would get a whole lot out of. Gravity's Rainbow is one of those books. Anyone can read it, even if you don't understand every single line (I certainly didn't). I feel like calling a book "difficult" doesn't add anything. (/rant)
(I recognize you weren't trying to start an argument, and I'm not either. But, in the spirit of discussion:)
In defense of my reference to Gravity's Rainbow's difficulty in my submission statement, I'll just say that I was definitely meaning it more with respect to the active use of negative dialectics and an expression of sympathy for those who find the style abstruse and the subject matter unpleasant than as a brag.
Seriously, every article about this book calls it hard, every amateur reviewer either says it was hard but worth reading or it was a waste of effort to simply drag their eyes across the pages, my own first experience of the book was defined by absolute overwhelm.
Should I just ignore all that context? Should I pretend that the book didn't take more effort to understand than any other classic I'd read? Especially since the book is designed to offend and disgust and drive the reader crazy, this isn't about achievement or machismo, it's about setting people up with the right frame of expectations: it's a convoluted book that expects the reader to do a lot, and if a prospective reader isn't aware of that, they seem more likely to never pick it back up than it seems like a warning will put them off it. Besides, when the discourse about a book is filled with its 'difficulty', doesn't pretending it isn't challenging to understand situate yourself as above even the consideration of such challenges?
First off, I want to say that my original comment was more about the opening to the article you shared, not your SS. You're bringing a lot of thought and nuance up against what was a one-sided thought dump from me. I agree with what you're saying!
I think I might really have more of a problem with the specific words "difficult" and "challenging," implying that a book is—well—a challenge or difficulty to be overcome. There are just better, more descriptive ways to talk about books. Gravity's Rainbow is thematically dense, allusive, the writing syntactically complex. Setting people's expectations is good, I feel you. But I think there are better ways of setting those expectations outside of the discourse of "difficulty." Basically, as a lover of Pynchon and a lot of so-called "difficult" literature, I want more people to be reading this stuff!
I see, thanks for clarifying. I didn't find the article lacking in expressiveness regarding those things, but I do agree about the obtuseness of that framing. Often though, it seems like using jargon has an even more alienating effect than the assertion of challenge. It's a tricky conversation in general, a lot of people these days aren't ever taught to read complex prose or poetry and find themselves insecure at the mention of Literature, and plenty of jackasses peacocking their copy of Infinite Jest have poisoned the well around those who do have the skill. It seems like if you go into detail, anyone who isn't already familiar with that sort of art just tunes out, if you ignore the difficult aspects then you're setting people up for failure, and if you express them in simple terms you're feeding into the "I read this Big, Important Book, and deserve accolades" sort of vibe.