Extremely. One of the best writers you can read, if not THE best. I don't read fiction that much anymore, but I've thought about buying another Pynchon every now and then. Very technical engineering/mathematical knowledge, in depth philosophical vistas and a general appreciation for mystery and detective-esque tension.
>>7662556 If you think Pynchon has technical material, you most likely haven't taken a mathematics course beyond Derivatives. His tech knowledge is pedestrian at best, and only introduced to make plebs nod and stare. His philosophical approach to life is pretty awesome and his satire is top notch, however. t. Math phd
>>7663281 >DeLillo I keep seeing people refer to the complexity of DeLillo, but I've read White Noise and it wasn't really challenging at all. Are Libra and Underworld noticeably more 'difficult' or something?
>>7663299 I can't speak for the whole of DeLillo's work, but Underworld isn't particularly difficult. The structure is a little fragmented but nothing groundbreaking. There is a lot of stuff left unexplained, but DeLillo, being a bit of a modern mystic, can't explain it either, so you're on equal footing at least.
>>7663314 >>7663325 Well that confuses me then, because Gravity's Rainbow is pretty confusing at times, to the point where I would think it would warrant being called "difficult" yet DeLillo is often considered in the same tier as ol' Tommy. I just purchased Libra recently, alongside Pinecone's apparently shitty Vineland, and I have the kinda-awful feeling they'll both be of the same (low) level of complexity. If D.'s supposed magnum opus, Underworld, "isn't particularly difficult", then where do academes (incl. Harold Bloom) get off calling DeLillo a deep thinker? As for the authors >>7663281 mentions, I know Gass, Gaddis, and Hawkes are pretty damn challenging, but why include DeLillo of all people in this same tier?
>>7663337 Difficult =/= deep DeLillo covers a large spectrum of themes, and he covers them well, and his prose while he does so is fantastic (the dialogue isn't for everybody though, everyone generally speaks in the same voice imo). But what he doesn't do is make the narrative overly complicated or opaque, as it can be in GR for instance. Though maybe I am not doing Underworld justice, it's not a childrens' book, but it is a breeze when compared to (classic) Pynchon. I definitely wouldn't lump him in the same category as the others you mentioned, but he is arguably one of the most important American authors of the last few decades.
>>7663369 Inherent Vice is an okay starting point desu, not GR though. Optimally you should have some knowledge of Pynchon and how he writes/what he writes about. I hear he wrote large parts of GR while tripping balls on acid, so knowing the place of mind he's coming from makes digesting it easier (or even possible in the first place)
>>7663382 There's a flowchart going around, basically avoid the Where's Waldo covers, they have blurry text and apparently there's a line of text missing from GR (as if anyone would notice lol).
Random House should be fine, but speaking from experience (got M&D and IV from Random House), the hardcovers are pretty big, as in the dimensions of the actual book. A little unwieldly if you read on the go. Mb try the paperbacks?
Start with Mason and Dixon and give up because it's dense and astoundingly original. Absolutely a gut-punch. Do this. Read around 100 or so pages. If it still grabs you, you're on the train and can read in any order. But if not then go straight to Against the Day. It's easier and a fucking masterpiece.
Rest come later in any order you like. And GR comes last.
But don't take my advice. Go do it in your own style because with Pynchon you can't go wrong.
>>7663401 Where's Waldo is the first one, so avoid that, yes.
Not sure about the second one, but since there seem to be very few versions of GR around, and that's not the WW one, I think it should be fine. Most people have that version I think.
If you're willing to spend a little more money, you should go for the Viking Press version though, they're the ones who published the first edition. It's almost guaranteedly mistake-free and has the bitchin' original cover
>>7665842 No, it was a commentary on poor statistics. There was no correlation between Slothrop's dick and the rocket strikes. Slothrop was fucking so many women and so so many rockets were striking London that within the time span they chose for significant correlation, statistically, a rocket would have to strike down within the general area of where he boned. I think they said that it was between three days and two weeks for a rocket to strike within the same grid square as one he fucked in. Depending on the grid used, that could be within the same square kilometer or the same 250000m2 area, which is a huge area in London to account for V2 landings.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.