Thomas Pynchon and V

Pynchon is a writer of ideas. His novels are chock full of ideas -- many of them scientific or philosophical -- and it can be really hard to follow what's going on. I find even his "easy" stuff, a la The Crying of Lot 49, really hard to follow.

DeLillo and McCarthy are idea writers as well, but their characters and plots aren't often as cartoonish as Pynchon's. And even though Pynchon is regarded as a master, and in some ways he is, I've always believed that DeLillo is every bit his equal. DeLillo's White Noise is nothing less than a masterpiece.

If you are reading Pynchon, don't dare begin with V. The only easy thing, and easy meaning moderately hard thing of his is "The Crying of Lot 49" which, of course, is a very difficult book. He is a post-modern author, in every meaning of the word, meaning there is no coherent plot, and the characters and narrators can take almost any form. The language too is beyond confines, and often becomes jumbled and insane.

V is easy relative to Gravities Rainbow, but still one of the more difficult novels.
The 4 great authors, you mention, are called that by Harold Bloom, a literary critic with a huge influence, who doesn't discriminate based on difficulty, but rather declares books great based on what he calls "Literary Merit". Don't start with that stuff if you are interested in "the big names of literature" start with Homer, and work your way down. Or if you are into American, start with Melville and go down.

I haven't read V but I love Gravity's Rainbow. It is difficult to keep the big picture in mind, and I found myself reading each scene as if it were its own separate and unrelated work. By and by, things come together, like an impressionist painting as you back away. Or, like hearing conversations in a strange city and eventually getting an idea of the culture. Breathtaking prose, too.

Hurling a twirling ax into the heart of the matter...

Hey JBI, could you explain the meaning of the term "literary merit" please?

Click to expand...

I'm not JBI, but I'll give it a whirl.

Does it have to do with the various techniques employed in the writing?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I don't quite understand.

Click to expand...

That's okay. No one else does, either.

But here's a definition of "literary merit" I once read that seems to make the most sense:

A work possesses literary merit if a sufficient number of critics say it does.

Click to expand...

There. Done. But the reality is that defining what is "literary" or what possesses such merit is always a big ol' can of wiggly worms. There isn't such a definition. Not really.

Here's why: literary merit is a function of prose, ideas, philosophical strengths, psychological verisimilitude, complexity and sophistication of said ideas and expression, clarity of thought (or, perhaps in the case of Pynchon, obscurity), originality, influence, and probably a whole bunch of other things that, yes, includes the various techniques used in writing. In short, if an author does all the stuff that everyone else does, only way better, it's lit.

KansasWriter

The first thing to say about Thomas Pynchon is that there's automatic reason why you should like him. Plenty of people don't - you'll find, around AW and elsewhere, Pynchon regularly getting brickbatted. If this style of writing isn't for you, the best thing to do is close the book and find another author. Life's too short to worry about why you don't like a particular style.

Having said that, I'm a huge admirer of Pynchon's work. It often doesn't have a straight linear narrative. Plot takes a back-seat to literary style, inventiveness, ideas and humour. If part of a novel is told from a character's POV, their mind may wander off into fantasy, Pynchon's novel will follow. It can be dreamy and hard-to-follow. At times, you'll simply be lost, and maybe even bored. Then you'll read on and the book will snap back into focus. It might sometimes seem purposeless, but Pynchon's novels do have plots. They just get obscured at times.

Like James Joyce before him, Pynchon meanders between compelling and exasperating. He enjoys playing games with his readers. You may have to work at enjoying a Pynchon novel, and you may need to re-read it. But it will probably reward your effort.

But above all, Pynchon is a master of lyrical style. His sentence construction is matched by few others. If I understood nothing else in a novel, I would read Pynchon just for the pleasure of soaking in that gorgeous prose.

No, I've never understood Frank Zappa either.

If you want a (relatively) easy introduction to the modernist style, I'd recommend James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Summonere said:

I'm not JBI, but I'll give it a whirl.



Yes.



That's okay. No one else does, either.

But here's a definition of "literary merit" I once read that seems to make the most sense:



There. Done. But the reality is that defining what is "literary" or what possesses such merit is always a big ol' can of wiggly worms. There isn't such a definition. Not really.

Here's why: literary merit is a function of prose, ideas, philosophical strengths, psychological verisimilitude, complexity and sophistication of said ideas and expression, clarity of thought (or, perhaps in the case of Pynchon, obscurity), originality, influence, and probably a whole bunch of other things that, yes, includes the various techniques used in writing. In short, if an author does all the stuff that everyone else does, only way better, it's lit.

Click to expand...

Literary Merit is what we call a work wish is deemed to have some beneficial excellence to bestow upon its readers. For instance, Grisham is regarded as lacking literary merit, since there is nothing beneficial (it seems) from reading his works, since he rarely has thematic development, realistic and insightful characters, has sub-par prose stylistics, and doesn't offer much to the author, besides a spent time.

A work by Pynchon however, can be considered to have merit because of the unique voice of the author, the interesting development and creation of characters, the strong unique themes, and the labyrinthine depth of content available.

That is a basic example. There clearly is a such thing as "literary merit", the question is, what has it, and what doesn't.

Time is regarded as the best judge of literary merit. Those books that cease to be read after their popular release are known as period pieces. Those books only survive for a period of time, and then cease to be read.

Other books have what is known as a "timeless quality". These books are read for years to come, the best example being Homer, the most enduring writer there has ever been.

Moby Dick only became the great American novel it is regarded as being in the 20th century, that is considered an example of how the public was wrong, and how popularity at time of release doesn't deem a book to be containing literary merit.

As for the comment that literary critics are those that decree what has literary merit, that is kind of their job. No one has time to read every novel, therefore we rely on critics to give us a head-start, and to help us out by narrowing the field.

KansasWriter said:

Hmmm, well that's kind of what's Joseph Campbell was saying when discussing artists wasn't it? I forget the exact passage, but essentially equating art and artists with the thread of pure reality running through the world.

Click to expand...

He didn't invent it, his theory comes heavily from Jungian psychology.

V always seemed to me a parody of the spy novel. Imagine a couple of different Smileys hunting a Karla who keeps changing his identity so much (or gets his identity changed by the author) that by the end he's not even the same Karla you started with and possibly never was.

http://v.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page is a pretty good site on the book.

http://www.hyperarts.com/pynchon/v/ is useful also.

Even "literary merit" is hotly debated among folks who are presumed to be in the know. Take Gravity's Rainbow--a book that nearly drove me insane in grad school. The Pulitzer jury unanimously recommended it for the Pulitzer. The Pulitzer Board on the other hand resoundingly declined to award the prize to Pynchon, preferring not to award the Pulitzer for fiction that year. Gone with the Wind won its Pulitzer handily. Which of these books is of greater literary merit? I dunno.

Just found this thread.

I'm in two thirds of the way through Gravity's Rainbow right now.

At times, it's unbearable. Hundreds of characters and hundreds of subplots. He writes like he's typing with a sledgehammer: hammering away with description no matter how overwrought or redundant. The research (or maybe his own knowledge?) into things like V2 rockets, comic books, and other obscure things makes for a winding and confusing backdrop. How it's all going to tie together is an absolute mystery. I often wonder whether there is a way to tie it together.

I've put it down at times and walked away, completely exasperated.

Having said that, for the most part it's genius and it's worth the struggle. At least it's worth the struggle so far because things just flow most of the time. I might change my mind in the end.

I Finished Gravity's Rainbow!!!!!



Yeah I finally finished the damn thing. 776 pages of well, everything, pretty much. Started it in HS, gave up a 1/3 of the way through. Restarted it after graduating college this spring! YEAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! Hardest book I've ever read by a long shot.

I never, ever thought I could do it. It took me 6-7 years but I DID IT!!!

Who else has read this crazy thing?

I have it in my waiting to be read pile from the library to see how the author uses omniscient viewpoint. Though the librarian did look at it when I checked it out and said, "You've got your work cut out."

I read Swann's Way! And An American Tragedy!

. . . but I've never been able to finish a book by Henry James. Maybe someday. Or not.

cuallito said:

Who else has read this crazy thing?

Click to expand...

I love that book. Though it's a bit of a challenge.

alleycat said:

I read Swann's Way!

Click to expand...

One down, five to go. I'm currently summoning up the gumption to take on Guermantes Way.

alleycat said:

And An American Tragedy!

Click to expand...

You have my sympathies.

alleycat said:

. . . but I've never been able to finish a book by Henry James. Maybe someday. Or not.

Click to expand...

Lots of people say that about James. I read What Maisie Knew and quite enjoyed it.


Anyway, the ultimate challenge is Finnegans Wake. I made page 160 before tedium saw me off.

many congrats...wow, Pynchon is hard enough without 776 pages of him

I felt like this when I finished American Pastoral by Philip Roth...it was long (not 776 long but...) and even though I love most of his writing, for some reason, this one I had to keep going back to but, was stoked when I finished it

I'm going to finish War and Peace this time! Halfway through! I've learned to skim through the "and so-and-so was encamped at such-and-such, while Napoleon was having lunch at Chateau Whozit with Count Whothehellcares-ski" until I hit one of the character names like Prince Andrei or Pierre or Nicolas and the POV pulls back in for a closeup.

The book I had to applaud myself for finishing was Portrait of a Lady. And then Isabel turned out to be as big an overblown wuss as I'd feared she would. Ugh.

I love it! Congrats! Have a drink for old Tom.

Phaeal said:

The book I had to applaud myself for finishing was Portrait of a Lady. And then Isabel turned out to be as big an overblown wuss as I'd feared she would. Ugh.

Click to expand...

You just spoiled the ending for me. Just don't tell me whether Napoleon wins in the end.