Alright, I’m getting ready to leave for about six months and want to pick out some reading to take with me. I’ve read the Crying of Lot 49 about three times, so I figure I might be ready to tackle some more Pynchon with the time that I have. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to which of his works (not including Slow Learner) would be fitting to read next. I have Gravity’s Rainbow, V., and Vineland. Thanks.
Best to read them in the order in which they were written: V., Then Gravity’s Rainbow, then Vineland.
One word of warning: Gravity’s Rainbow is a major leap in difficulty from the earlier books. Almost Joycean in complexity and deliberate obscurity. It’s worth reading for Pynchon’s undeniable skill with language and the baroque allegorical levels of meaning, (If you like that kind of thing) but it can be very heavy going.
So If you don’t feel like a challenge maybe you should read V. and Vineland before GR.
I got six pages into Mason and Dixon before giving up.
I concur with Larry Borgia; I too read Crying first, then V., then Gravity’s Rainbow (all this was before Vineland or Mason & Dixon were published). I do think V. is a good warm-up for Gravity’s Rainbow. GR is the novel I keep going back to, however; I think I’ve been through it three times completely, and a fourth skimming and skipping. V. and Vineland I’ve only read once each, and like Larry I stalled out early in my attempt to read Mason & Dixon.
Gravity’s Rainbow is damn-near unreadable, as far as I’m concerned. But if you decide to try it, you might want to pick up a companion book so you don’t have to leap off the roof in frustration. The deliberate obscurity is very alienating. He’s created a private club that requires vast quantities of knowledge before you can understand a single sentence of his book. That’s his right. He is writing to a decidedly brighter group than I’ll ever be a part of. I appreciate his brilliance, but fuck 'im just the same.
Thanks a bunch. I guess I’ll take V.
Just so you know, if you’re Simpsons/Pynchon fans, he is going to be on the Simpsons January 25th episode. He’s playing himself, but they’re drawing him with a paper bag over his head and a question mark painted on the bag. Anyway, it’s really his voice; I don’t really know how they got him.
Like you I put GR down.About 30 yrs.ago I read V,picked up in used books for like 50c to take to the beach and couldn’t put it down.Kept my interest in the style written.
So when GV came out I picked it up looking for some more of the same.Compltely botched up work from someone,I can only guess, was on a drug I’m not familiar with.
I had the same reaction to Acoplypse Now-the movie.
After seeing Godfather fairly well done except for a few casting changes,IMO,AN looked like a person saying-Hey look at me! I can do all the artsy stuff.Must have been stroking it every time he saw the rushes.
I read them in order only because that’s how they were published.
Gravity’s Rainbow is a major work. I didn’t find it nearly as complex as Joyce. But then I like Joyce. If you really want to read Pynchon you read Gravity’s Rainbow.
As to others: the two earlier books are kind of light weight.
Vineland is a little better but not all that difficult.
Mason Dixon. . .well it’s totally accessible; but you must be into historical if you want to really get off on it.
I know a lot of people feel that way, not only about Pynchon but about Joyce and other authors as well – I’ve even heard the same complaint about Patrick O’Brian from people who found the sea-jargon impenetrable. I guess what I don’t get it is why you have to understand everything, especially the first time around. I certainly didn’t “get” every reference, allusion, or joke in Gravity’s Rainbow or Ulysses the first time around; there’s plenty I still haven’t gotten, I’m sure. But I still enjoyed reading them; the stuff I didn’t get I just let wash over me – some of it became clearer as I read, while some I had to make an effort to figure out. I certainly don’t possess “vast quantities of knowledge” (I had only the vaguest idea of the history of IG Farben, for example, my first time through), but none of that is ultimately what the book is actually about. Just relax. It’s only a book, after all.
So (if I may semi-hijack for a moment) the merits of Gravity’s Rainbow notwithstanding, is Crying of Lot 49 a worthwhile read if I just want to get my feet wet with Pynchon?
Personally, I love Crying. Partly that’s because the paper I wrote on it in grad school was one of the best things I ever did, and partly because the research for that paper sent me off down several paths that’ve become long-term interests of mine (information theory in particular). But mainly because it’s an easy read and it’s fun. And even though it’s much easier going (and a lot shorter) than GR, it’s also a pretty good introduction to what Pynchon is like. Pretend you’ve never heard anything about Pynchon being “difficult” and just read it. Don’t worry about which parts are based on fact and which ones are invented (some of the least likely-sounding bits have at least some basis in reality) or what they mean. It’s a very funny book in many ways. I think I’d probably put it ahead of V. or Vineland as my second favorite Pynchon novel after GR, and I still re-read it every few years (I’ve probably been through it six or seven times in the last fifteen years).
Excellent. Thanks, rackensack.
Yeah, I may give it another try, now that I’m older. But the first time I tried it, I couldn’t maintain any continuity because the obscure references were just too much for me. I know it’s great literature…I just think it was written for someone greater than moi.