what is the more complex book to read?
I haven’t read Infinite Jest, but Gravity’s Rainbow is more complicated that Dhalgren, which, other than the beginning/end is basically a superb picaresque novel: the Kid has one adventure after another.
i hear Gravity’s Rainbow is considered to be the greatest post-modernist book of all time, is this accurate
Can’t speak for the others mentioned here, but Gravity’s Rainbow is by far the most difficult novel I’ve ever read.
I don’t think there’s any way to answer that. You certainly get a lot of plot for the money, and Pynchon’s depth of knoweldge of arcane scientific and historical subjects is breathtaking. He tends to go off on massive tangents, however; when I finally finished the book I felt like I’d spent several weeks listening to a disheveled guy on a street corner who was obviously highly educated but had descended into gibbering rants about global conspiracies and the state of his colon.
But here, the NYT’s original review makes, I think, a fair point:
[Quote=Richard Locke]
The risk that Pynchon’s fiction runs is boredom, repetition without significant development, elaboration that is no more than compulsiveness… In “Gravity’s Rainbow” the structure is strained beyond the breaking point. Reading it is often profoundly exasperating; the book is too long and dense; despite the cornucopia of brilliant details and grand themes, one’s dominant feelings in the last one to two hundred pages are a mounting restlessness, fatigue and frustration. The book doesn’t feel “together.”
[/Quote]
so where does Delaney, author of Dhalgren rank among say James Joyce in terms of influence, complex writing etc.
Dhalgren more complex than Ulysses or not?
I don’t think of Dalhgren or Ulysses as very complex books. Influence-wise Joyce is orders of magnitude greater.
Personally I didn’t care much for Dahlgren, but I’m not inclined to like conspicously poetic books – highly sexual or not. If you want a book that begins* to wound the autumnal city,* then that’s your book. But it’s a pleasant read next to Gravity’s Rainbow. I thought Pynchon’s V was okay but overrated, that The Crying of Lot 49 was fun, and GR not worth reading past the first few chapters.
(Reality Chuck and I both promote Barth’s Sotweed Factor, but disagree on Delany, and Harlan Ellison.)
Dahlgren is said to be pretty complex itself, and yet you and an earlier poster said this book is like a cakewalk compared to Gravity Rainbow
is GR that tough? im kind of scared to try it:eek: lol
so Joyce is more influential than Delany
but who is the better writer between the two in terms of prose…?
I am sorry but to speak of Delaney and James Joyce in the same sentence is IMHO laughable. Dahlgren is not a particularly complex novel and Ulysses is not the one to set the bar. That would be Finnegan’s Wake. Pynchon has done some spectacular writing, unfortunately you have to slog through way too much verbiage to find it. I think you should take a crack at Gravity’s Rainbow but have a second, lighter book on hand to intersperse with the more difficult read.
the reason i compared Delaney to Joyce is i heard it be said that Dahlgren is “the Ulysses of Science Fiction” or something…
but you wouldn’t put Delaney on Joyce’s level in terms of writing ability?
Nope. With all due respect to Delaney he is not in Royce’s league. I am heartened to hear that others here appreciate The Sot-Weed Factor. (Gravity’s Rainbow is the best book I have never been able to finish. )
would you say there arn’t really alot of writers past or present that are in Joyce’s league?
Damn autocorrect.
Look, Chip Delany is a brilliant man (in person, he tosses off one brilliant insight after another) and a terrific writer, but The Einstein Intersection is far more complex than Dhalgren (I’m still not sure of what it’s about, though I should read it again). I think Dhalgren is a great novel, but not one of stunning complexity like GR.
GR is a hard book to read, and it takes a very long time to get into the rhythm of it (the entire first section is slow overall), but it eventually takes off, and is filled with brilliant insights within the novel). Much like Barth, he takes real people and events and weaves them into the narrative (e.g., Tyrone is based upon Little Albert).
I made the mistake of reading one after another, and found it hard to find anything that seemed interesting enough to read after that.
If I disliked Dhalgren would I hate Gravity’s Rainbow and Infinite Jest?
Only read infinite jest and honestly once I got into the flow (about half way) it just flew by. If you get over that hump its very enjoyable and funny and tragic.
There’s complexity, and there’s readability. Different things.
That was just the obvious fact of the day. For the personal anecdotal experience:
I absolutely loved Gravity’s Rainbow, and didn’t find it difficult at all, but I did read it many years ago before the internet reduced my attention span to the length of a YouTube video. I couldn’t get past page one of Infinite Jest. Don’t know anything about Dhalgren.
is sam delaney on james joyce level
I don’t know about its complexity, but I had to force myself to finish *Dhalgren. *And in the end, I didn’t know why I bothered.
We should start the “What the heck was the point of Dhalgren” Club. 