John Barth thread

>>8015804
The Sot-Weed Factor is great fun.

>>8015804
i'm interested in him too, SIlverblatt is a huge fan, and i like his taste.

You should read all of his first seven books in order.

kek this nigga head funny

>>8015840
It's big to fit all his smart thoughts in it.

lost in the funhouse
chimera
sot weed factor

Whats reading him like? Is there any human condition stuff or is it all encyclopedic and academic?

>>8016557
Mostly the latter, I don't feel much from Barth's novels at all

>>8016557
Sot Weed Factor was funny and raunchy but maybe 150 pages too long.
He has some great stuff but it would be even better in a smaller dose.

File: david_foster_wallace.jpg (357KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 750x500px

>>8015804

Isn't he another one of those lol so ironic po-mo cynics? Sorry, but DFW turned me away from all that and tought me you can't live life like that.

>>8016562
They don't even make you laugh? C'mon.

The only way to read Barth is chronological all the way up to LETTERS, especially because he reuses a ton of his characters in it. I don't think anything after LETTERS is worth reading

I've read some of Lost in the Funhouse. I really like his ideas but something about his style of writing I find somewhat annoying. Ambrose His Mark is a fantastic story, though. I plan on finishing Lost in the Funhouse soon, but I can't read more than 20 pages of the guy before I need a break.

>>8016557
it's more like reading an over-educated professor's silly literary jokes

his writing has a very tongue in cheek quality, so i wouldn't call it 'cold', but it never really lets you get immersed in the book.

he's sort of like a long winded vonnegut

>>8017369
>>8016557
or let me put it this way: there is humanity in his writing but not so much in his characters

Judging from what you've guys said, he seems pretty dull. >>>/trash/ ???

>>8018267
Nooo, he's tons of fun.